In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural sciences?

Most disagreements are caused by different perceptions that created different realities.

This quote states that because of how different we apply the ways of knowing; we gain different

knowledge. A real-life example of this is the recent banning of transgender people to serve the

United States military by Donald Trump. He implemented this policy because he views that their

medical cost is a burden. This enraged a lot of American people since in their judgement anyone

can be in the military regardless of their sexuality. This caused a lot of debates on the ethics of this

issue. Some people who were transphobic like Trump, learned a thing or two from the perspective

of the other party. Not only does disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in ethics, but it also

extends to the pursuit of knowledge in another area of knowledge, which is the natural sciences.

From the beginning of time, the natural sciences have already been there. Countless theories and

laws have been made for us to understand the physical sense of the world. Undoubtedly, scientists

have crossed with different scientists because of their conflicting ideas. An example of this is

Alfred Wegener and his feud with The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Wegeners

theory on the plate tectonics caused backlash with them since it countered a lot the theories of

geologists during that time. This caused a controversy in the scientific world that other scientists

studied the models presented by Wegener and they were able to verify that his theory was true.

Without this disagreement, we might have never known about the plate tectonics which is our basis

on climactic and environmental phenomena. In my perspective, there are three ways on how

disagreement can aid the pursuit of knowledge in natural sciences. The first postulate is that
disagreement can lead you to know the perspective of the other party which can lead you to

examine and reflect on your own facts. The second postulate is that disagreement can you lead you

to further examine and study the case in order to gain the correct knowledge. The third postulate

is that disagreement can lead to the acceptance that the facts from both parties can be

simultaneously right. Disagreement does aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural sciences as it

can lead people to be open-minded about the facts by the other, to further investigate on the conflict

to gain the true knowledge, and to accept facts from both parties as true.

Disagreement can lead people to be open-minded about the facts given by others.

Disagreement is rooted on conflicting ideas. When two people have conflicting ideas, they usually

end in a discussion or debate defending their stand. Usually how a debate ends is that one party

will win because they were able to defend their stand better than the opposing party. Since they

have been debunked, the losing team will be able to evaluate if their stand is really the better one.

This opens a door with them being more open-minded and accept the facts presented by the other.

A real-life example of this is the 1860 Oxford Evolution Debate. This debate was between a

scientist named Thomas Huxley and a bishop named Samuel Wilberforce where they debated on

the Theory of Evolution. Since Huxley is pro-Darwin, he used the now widely accepted theories

of Charles Darwin. At the end of the debated, Huxley was proclaimed the victor. This caused the

gradual acceptance of the masses of Darwins theories and this also led to Catholic bishops to be

more open-minded on the Theory of Evolution. However, even though debates end with a winning

party, the losing team is often dissatisfied with the results because of the conflicting ways of

reasoning. This happened during our debate in Biology class held last year. The motion was to

promote the use of embryotic stem cells as a treatment for morbid diseases like cancer. Embryotic

stem cells as a treatment is the use of fertilized human eggs to develop healthy cells to be injected
to a sick patient to serve as stem cells. Since I am a part of the affirmative team, we presented

arguments based on how it is more practical to help a dying patient than gravitate our concern

towards the zygote. The negative team presented arguments based on religion since our religion

believes that life begins at fertilization. At the end, the negative team was deemed as the winner. I

felt dissatisfied with the results since they have used arguments based on the Catholic beliefs and

not everyone gears towards faith as their way of knowing in discussing issues of ethics. However,

debates can still continue until the party is persuaded to believe in the opposing party. This can be

seen in the judiciary system of the United States. Whenever a trial is taken to court, it is up to the

jury to charge the defendant as innocent or guilty. During the trial, the lawyers from both parties

try to convince on why their client is not be charged by the crime. After the trial, the jury will talk

amongst themselves on the verdict. The system of this is that they will not come up with a verdict

without everyone from the group agreeing to the verdict. At first they may have disagreements but

in end they have to come up with a verdict that favors everyones beliefs.

Disagreement can lead people to investigate further on the conflict. Whenever our beliefs

are challenged, we tend to get defensive. We will find ways in order to debunk and disprove

whatever is countering our arguments. Therefore, people result to investigation and research to

prove that they do have the correct idea. A real-life example of this is when I heard an argument

between two teenagers about tea. One teenager said that tea was made by the English since they

are famous for having tea time. The other teenager argued that tea was made by the Japanese since

matcha green tea is very popular. In their dispute, they went to the internet to settle this. In the end,

they found out that they were both wrong since tea is made by the Chinese. Even though some do

turn to research to verify the facts they know, other humans are stubborn and close-minded that all

they want to believe is what facts they know. An example of this is when I watched a debate
between a doctor and a nurse on the motion that health care is a right and not a privilege. The

doctors were part of the negative team while the nurses were part of the affirmative team. At the

end when the crowd favored the arguments of the nurses, one doctor countered that they should

win the debate because they are more educated and experienced in terms of health care. However,

the human mind is subjected to fallacy and limitations. A real-life example of this is my father

who works as a doctor. Whenever he has a big surgery to do, he will always open his medical text

books. Even though he spent years in medical school and in experience within the hospital, he says

that he could not remember it all and he will not gamble his pride for the sake of the patients life.

Disagreement can also lead people to accept that both parties can be simultaneously true.

Whenever people have conflicting sides, this usually stems from different reasons. Although these

may be different, they still have proof and both of them can be true. This can be seen on how light

is both a particle and a wave. As early as the nineteenth century, people already believed that light

is a wave but the scientific community was shocked on how Einstein claimed that light is a particle.

After different experiments, scientists then concluded that light is both a particle and a wave.

However, there are some areas of knowledge like faith, that cannot be simultaneously true with

the natural sciences. An example of this is the passing of Republic Act No. 10354 or The

Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. Before this was passed in the

Senate and the House of Representatives, the Catholic Church had strong opinions on this matter.

The Catholic Church condemns this law since it gives Filipinos more access to contraceptives

which promotes premarital sex which is prohibited by the Bible. Health agencies like the

Department of Health promotes this law since it can contain the spread reproductive diseases. With

these two influential parties clashing, it proves that with faith and the natural sciences cannot have

the same views. However, it is up to the judgement of a person to consider what is really true. As
a Catholic and a believer of science, I believe in both The Creation in the Bible and the Theory of

Evolution.

As Philosopher Karl Popper once said, The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon

disagreement. Disagreement is necessary for our pursuit of knowledge especially in the natural

sciences. Disagreement can lead people to be more open-minded with the knowledge of others, to

investigate further on the conflict to gain true knowledge, and to prove that knowledge from both

parties can be simultaneously true. Therefore, disagreement should not even be discouraged, in

fact it should even be encouraged.

(Word count: 1552)

 Bibliography

The American Judicial System, home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter2text.htm.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins. Charlotte Lozier Institute, lozierinstitute.org/a-

scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/.

Education.comMack, Levine. Double-Slit Science: How Light Can Be Both a Particle and a
Wave. Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-light-
wave-particle/.

Karl Popper Quote: Karl Popper Quote: "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon
disagreement." (7 wallpapers) - Quotefancy, quotefancy.com/quote/1370627/Karl-Popper-The-
growth-of-knowledge-depends-entirely-upon-disagreement.

Reasons for Disagreements. Quotes Empire, 17 Apr. 2014,

quotesempire.com/wisdom/reasons-for-disagreements/.

The Biggest Feuds in the History of Science. Ranker, www.ranker.com/list/biggest-feuds-in-

science/rylee_en.