n what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and Human Sciences?

I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance, I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance.1 - Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework.

Knowledge is truth that is universally agreed upon in the realm of humans and human thinking and truth cannot spring from anywhere but our own ideas and perceptions perceptions that make agreements based upon connections or incompatibilities of our own thoughts. In our mind, where we can make the agreements and connections of our ideas clear, we will arrive at the truth and thus there will be knowledge; however if there are no such connections or dissonances about ideas, we will always be falling short of truth for all such beliefs. Not only agreement and connections but also dissonance of ideas or disagreements will lead us to the truth, in other words, knowledge. I believe that disagreement on ideas between individuals is one important way to move towards knowledge and it helps unravel the truth with the help of reasoning, arguments and counter arguments. Nobody will always be right and the different opinions or viewpoints of people will aid in accomplishing real knowledge. Even though disagreements may sometimes spin out of control, the results are certainly worthwhile. However, if differences are kept within limits and individuals know where to draw the line in terms of expressing themselves and being ethical enough with respect to the proper ways of communication, there are many positives that could emerge. Whenever the intentions of individuals are genuine, the differences in viewpoints will lead to a higher consciousness of different possible facets as well as the different analysis of the evidence of the knowledge issue under discussion. These differences will therefore lead to the generation of intellectual verve and a cross breeding of thoughts and ideas. This process then will lead to the generation of varied hypotheses to deal with a specific matter and as such will then present a range of solutions that will help in sorting out situations in the best possible manner and with the best available solution.

http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/

Within the gamut of natural sciences, so many times it has happened that disagreements to the given and accepted have led to advancements and began very early on when it was believed that the earth is flat. About 500 years back the notion that the earth could be round was rejected citing reasons such as if the earth was round, people at the bottom side of earth would fall from that side. But later this myth was debunked when while thinkers began to disagree with the commonly accepted fact on the flatness of earth and many valid evidence was brought forth to reject the theory of the roundness of the earth. Evidence like the projected shadow on moon of earth at the time of lunar eclipse, different lengths of shadows at the same time on different places on earth and the fact that gravitational force exists on earth and if it were flat then earth would collapse around its centre. Thus, the differences in opinions of thinkers backed up with irrefutable evidence against an existing theory ultimately leads to the truth. There are two postulates of natural sciences that imbibe two different ways of scientific life and of the rationale of scientific inquiry. As per the first postulate, science is all about imagination and exploration and the scientist is somebody who is involved in an intellectual adventure when he tries to concept something in his mind and then tries to find the answers to it using the laws of different bodies of science, like physics, chemistry and biology etc. He or she therefore arrives at any discovery by first imagining about it and then actually creating it. It may be also when the scientist is undergoing any scientific expedition then on his or her way might stumble upon something of interest and that may lead to development of a scientific theory. There is another postulate within natural sciences on the way to arrive at truth or knowledge, which is that the whole activity of science is an analytical activity that requires evidence to proceed before any opinion or viewpoint can be generated. Thus science is a critical activity and the analysis of evidence can lead towards knowledge. The evidence can come in the form of established theories and making the use of the same to create something new, something worthwhile for the human race. Electricity was discovered a long time back but electricitys various applications are still being made these applications requiring the use of the already established principles of electricity or any other phenomenon like the use of heat and how other substances would react to it to create something worthwhile / truth / knowledge.2 Thus, under the first postulate, the truth already forms in the mind of the adventurous scientist under the gamut of his imagination which he uses to search for knowledge creation. This point of view finds support in many corners of the

Medawar, 1991: p. 30-31

scientific community. Some scholars say that: "One's preliminary hypotheses have a decided advantage in the judgement process."3 Human Science may be defined as the systematic and rational study of humans and human society and all the aspects related to humans and their behavior. This is what is agreed upon as a definition by most researchers who undertake the phenomenon of social study. The human behavior is itself unpredictable and will vary with different individuals behaving differently, thinking differently based on the set of their own experiences. One of the characteristics of human sciences is that it results in a body know organized knowledge which will have a broad consensus of researchers and only due to this broad consensus, is human science is actually termed as a science. However, when we compare the social sciences to natural sciences, we find that there will be a lot less agreement in the human sciences as compared to the natural sciences with respect to what will be known as knowledge or truth since natural science is related to the physical objects but human science is related to human behavior which varies individual to individual. Humans will tend to disagree with each other in their daily lives on an everyday basis. Thus social reality might be different for different individuals. But when the humans share their viewpoints, it is only then that some kind of consensus may be achieved post discussions on disagreements for it is through disagreements only then different viewpoints can be taken up for discussion, argues upon logically and made to arrive at the best possible consensus based solution which will the constitute knowledge as it would be agreed upon the majority of individuals after much delving upon the topic of discussion or issue of interest. For instance, Orientalism through the eyes of a Westerner would mean a study of cultures that are exotic, full of mystery, haunting and romance, the cultures existing in the middle east and the South Asia as texts point in that direction. The texts themselves have been written in the West by Westerners and out of their own experiences with the East, or the Orient. The texts were widely taken on the face value till humanist writers like Edward Said4 came on the stage and chose to disagree with what was taken as granted. This gave a fresh perspective to the Orient studies and also gave the Western world insights to discern the facts from the fiction and in this sense; it is so true that the development of Human Sciences has been through logical but constructive disagreements leading to what should be termed as knowledge.

3 4

Medawar, 1991: p. 32-33, p. 231; Popper, 1959 Orientalism by Edward Said

Disagreement will thus lead humans to understand how the different individual preferences lead to inputs that are made into the political system by the citizens and thus arrive at how we would like our society to be. In case there were no disagreements, there would be no exchange between components of society and that would lead to inhibition of any compromise among the individuals. But whenever there is exchange of thoughts amongst the people, via disagreements, it is only then we arrive at something that can be harmonious for all and we all adjust ourselves to that harmonious way of living. Thus the consensual agreement takes place and that converts into knowledge or truth that is agreeable to all. Conclusion Disagreement of view points and opinions lead to the creation of knowledge in both the natural sciences and human sciences. Under natural sciences, scientists might disagree upon a particular theory and this would pave the way for further research and backing up the theories with different evidence and that would ultimately lead to knowledge. Similarly human sciences which involves the behavior of humans and the society, would need disagreements which when expressed in a proper way would lead to debates and then finally to consensual agreements by the majority and which is then known as knowledge for all.