The Pros And Cons Of Robust Knowledge

Decent Essays

Knowledge is an information acquire from an individual through experience, interaction or education. The prescribed title claims that robust knowledge does not exist without the consideration of both consensus and disagreement. Robust knowledge is evaluating knowledge that can be reasonably reliable and contains valid evidence. I agree with the prescribed title that to be able to gain robust knowledge there will be a process of trails and errors. In affirmation to my agreement, scientists and historians gain knowledge that can be considered robust due to the process of gaining fixed consensus knowledge through a time with a valuable amount of disagreements. Scientists and historians shared the common procedure of constructing theories out of the available evidence from the past and present. Natural scientist uses the evaluation of inductive and deductive reasoning while historians process knowledge through the understanding of the past affecting the future and vice versa. In this case, robust knowledge is constructed through reasoning, imagination, and observation. In order for an individual to obtain robust knowledge one must take into consideration the different perspective of both consensus and disagreement. In the natural science, the creation of robust knowledge undergoes the process of inductive and deductive reasoning. Natural scientists use the scientific method, which is a process of investigation of the science world to express scientist interest or purpose in

Get Access