“Robust Knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
To what extent can some areas of knowledge be better in providing a more justified belief?
Can robust knowledge be considered as truth or just knowledge that is agreed upon or that is consensus with other robust knowledge?
Does complete consensus limit the production of knowledge?
To what extent are the polarisation of views useful for robust knowledge to be established?
Is it more beneficial or damaging to the establishment of truth to have disagreements?
If robust knowledge can only be created from disagreement, and thus evolution, does robust knowledge, in its final form, truly exist?
Is ‘robust knowledge’ defined as knowledge that has withstood the test of time?
What qualifies as robust knowledge? can personal knowledge be robust despite not having gone through consensus and disagreement
What makes knowledge reliable and whether or not it is.
It’s debatable whether ‘non-robust’ information qualifies as knowledge at all.
For knowledge to be considered robust, it must be subjected to a healthy amount of debate from several perspectives in order to guarantee that the knowledge is not tainted by the prejudice of a single viewpoint.
Some knowledge, while robust, are meant to have a limited scope/application, in order to be useful.