Disagreements in the pursuit of knowledge could take as wide a variety of forms as one’s imagination. The disagreement could be with a person of knowledge or authority, a general consensus that has so far remained unchallenged, a collection of data, an opinion or interpretation of a fact or a perceived fact. Those who disagree could be an individual, adherents to a particular ideology or a school of thought, a nation, a cult, or a natural or social scientist. Interestingly both the lists are not even half exhaustive.
At the heart of the phenomenon is the word “disagreement” that poses an intellectual challenge to those being disagreed with to prove, improve or re-prove their stance, and for to those who disagree, to prove their points. In most cases, it threatens the egos, which is possibly the biggest motivation for any human pursuit.
The pursuit of knowledge through disagreement could be obstructed by human emotions and the accompanied biases which transcend logical reasoning; religion and age old traditions that virtually descended into the genes of their followers are easy examples at hand. In such cases, disagreement, either fails to penetrate human thinking or else, serves to further strengthen the existing belief. Similarly, reasoning (inductive or deductive) help the two parties demonstrate the truth in their arguments. Therefore, certain ways of knowing can influence the extent to which disagreement may aid or hinder the pursuit of knowledge.
In natural sciences, inadequacies or the skewed nature of data, procedural shortcomings and flaws in the design of scientific experiments, inferences drawn or the facts overlooked could be challenged. The classical method of progress in the natural sciences is the graduation of a hypothesis to theory and then law. This is based on the principle of disagreement between a thesis and its anti-thesis; a theory and its contesting theories.
In all sciences whether natural or human, new findings, data and observations would enrich knowledge by encouraging new research and fresh analyses. This is because almost every theory in the natural sciences has been tested, discarded, proved, improved or disproved. Not only that, it has to be reproved, every time new observations or facts that could challenge it are discovered.
The need for disagreement is highlighted in the case of the centuries old debate over the cause of malaria starting with the belief that the disease spreads from bad air (mala-aria) to the discovery of malarial parasites. There can hardly be a case as demonstrative of the disagreement than the Pasteur-Pouchet debate on the theory of biogenesis. In hindsight one realizes that in the pursuit of knowledge, disproof of the discarded hypothesis of abiogenesis was as important as the proof of what is now considered as the established fact.
Technology may bring new discoveries and observations that create disagreements with the old thinking. A recent example of this would be claim by European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) that allegedly accelerated a neutrino to the speed of light, debunking Einstein’s theory. Amid hype, other organizations conducted the same experiment, which, as also CERN’s own re-trials proved, that there was a technological error. The claim and counterclaim for and against Einstein’s theory were the pursuit of knowledge.
Disagreements in the context of human sciences could unveil the reality behind social attitudes that tend to grow in conservative introvert societies over centuries, when they come in direct contact with external elements. Historically this happened especially when colonizing powers tried to reform societies. The resistance by the colonized societies vis-a-vis the reform agenda of the colonizers was in fact a disagreement.
Whether subsequent developments proved the external agenda to be reforms or exploitations, in both cases, the understanding of history and the cultural ethos was enriched. Today, where social media gives a peep to everyone in the world into almost all societies, the resultant disagreements generate heated debates on once “sacrosanct” cultural practices. Examples of such disagreements coming from outside the society vis-a-vis traditional consensus could be the practice of ‘Satti’ (burning alive of widows) in the Indian subcontinent.
In human sciences – more often than in natural sciences – disagreements could, in totality or partiality, be coupled with political or financial interests and motives. In the early 1970s, Chile faced a long standing inflation with depleted foreign reserves and a shrinking economy. Most economists’ recipe was to institute government controls. That is what had till then been the popular thinking. But then there were whose who disagreed with that recipe, the ‘Chicago Boys’, a group of Chilean economists who had generally been educated at the Chicago University. Their recipe for the ills of Chilean Economy was different and disagreed with the conservative society. Instead of government control, the ‘Chicago Boys’ revitalized the Chilean economy by privatizing state-owned companies and liberating the economy. This disagreement with the status quo by the ‘Chicago Boys’ pulled the Chilean economy out of the crisis as the poverty levels decreased, and the GDP increased.
The phenomenon of political/financial interests or the allegations of such motives in creating disagreements, though less than that in human sciences, is not unknown in natural sciences. Yet the cause of the pursuit of knowledge is served. An example of this would be the debate over global warming. Sallie Baliunas, a Harvard University Environmentalist disagreed with the popular belief spearheaded by Al Gore that global warming was due to human activity, mainly industrialization. She, on the basis of her research argued that human activity played only a small role in global warming. Naturally there are huge economic implications and hence interests to amplify the significance of the disagreement, encourage greater the research and as a consequence catalyze the pursuit of knowledge.
Disagreement may lead to competition and competition, usually, to the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, the given question can be simplified to: ‘To what extent is competition helpful to the pursuit of knowledge?’ Competition is central for innovation and giving new dimensions to a certain issue. Competition can also strengthen the urge to prove the other party wrong. I often find myself disagreeing with something being discussed in literature or politics class. I have noticed that, I always find the need to research, in order to go back and justify my point. Sometimes it is because I feel passionate about the point, or I feel that I could possibly prove myself right. This act of justification is the pursuit of knowledge. Returning to the ways of knowing, I have noticed that if I am very passionate about the issue, I refuse to see any other viewpoint and blindly remain loyal to my theory.
The principle of disagreement leading to pursuit of knowledge applies with even more relevance to development to ideas in social life and human sciences. The use of disagreement to row through knowledge and realities for better understanding is so universal in human sciences that one hardly finds the need to quote an example; each and every parliament in the world with an opposition designed to be placed in disagreement with the ruling majority and discussing, debating and concluding on all issues on their national and international radar screens is an example on its own account.
While disagreement may seem to be a necessary component of the pursuit for knowledge, drawbacks do exist. An abundance of disagreement may create a negative environment where ideas cannot be improved due to so many different parties offering their ideas. Disagreement can also perhaps stifle creativity as an individual would be more hesitant to propose an uncertain or abstract theory knowing that it could be vulnerable to attacks on multiple fronts. The possibility of egotistical damage could distract from the pursuit of knowledge and create a more collaborative environment, instead of innovative.
Therefore, disagreement aids the pursuit of knowledge but to a certain extent. Both natural and human sciences are areas of knowledge where a disagreement can lead to new knowledge. Ways of knowing such as emotion and reasoning are also factors which affect the effectiveness of a disagreement. While disagreement can be seen aiding the pursuit of knowledge, an abundance can lead to the stifling of original and innovative ideas due to the competitive and perhaps even hostile environment.
