xxxxx xxxx

Word Count: 1,600

Canditate Number: 000812-0008

Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement
between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of
knowledge

Dan Brown, American author, famous for his novel The Da Vinci Code once wrote that
sometimes all it takes is a tiny shift of perspective to see something familiar in a whole new
light (Brown, 2009). This idea can in fact be applied to not only every day life with the most
trivial of things, but within ones professional career as well. Within different disciplines, be it
science, art, mathematics, experts have discussions regarding ideas or conclusions that have
been reached within their field of study. Due to the fact that they have received an advanced
education within that discipline and have been named experts within said field, it is not that far-
fetched of an idea to believe that there should be no discussion, but rather a focus on
deepening knowledge of a specific field to expand the information available within it.
Nonetheless, discussions among experts are not uncommon, in fact expected. Consequently,
the question that emerges from this is how, despite the fact that these experts have access to
the same information, there is still disagreement between them. To answer this, the main areas
of knowledge (AoKs) analyzed will be science and indigenous knowledge systems, taking into
consideration the role that emotion, reason, sense perception and language play in influencing
and individuals understanding and perception of a specific subject.

Within the realm of Theory of Knowledge (ToK), Indigenous Knowledge Systems are very hard
to define. Unlike all of the other areas of knowledge, it is hard to create a solid definition for this
particular AoK because as its study includes various complex factors including the indigenous
peoples and their societies. As stated by Dunn (2014) This means this particular AoK is trying
to take into consideration what the United Nations has estimated as more than 370 million
people spread across at least 70 different countries (ibid.) Consequently, in order to avoid
generalizing or over-simplifying the specific knowledge systems, it is very hard to come up with
one general label. Additionally, indigenous societies are often located in remote and isolated
areas, nonetheless, they are very much the product of the environment in which they are
located, and there are some characteristics including being from a non-dominant group of
society and having their own language, culture and beliefs as well as. It is important to
understand these characteristics as they are the ones that make this particular AoK highly
influenced by all of the WOKS, including language, emotion, and reason, hence leading to
discussions amongst experts within the same discipline.

For example, I had the opportunity of witnessing, first hand, a debate between two different
indigenous studies experts that focused on the history of the Squamish Nation in Vancouver.
They were both members of the Squamish Nation. They were discussing the stories that they
were told as children, as it is very common within the indigenous culture to use stories as a
medium of explaining natural phenomena. They discussed the stories explaining the origin of
copper and the other explaining the origin of the salmon runs. What is interesting is that
despite the fact that the stories had the same information and came to the same conclusion,
their interpretation was completely different. The entire debate consisted on figuring out who
had the correct interpretation of the story.

While the leaders were discussing their stories and defending their points, it was clear that the
influence of AoKs was predominant. Firstly, emotion played a huge role in the discussion. They
were not only defending a story, but they were defending their legacy and what they
grandparents had told them since they were babies. It was a great personal matter and they did
take personal offense when one accused the other of being wrong. It was as if their entire
beliefs were wrong. Reason also played a clear role within the discussion as they were arguing
about the creation of actual physical objects that exist today, and were forming relevant
arguments. Despite the importance of the previously mentioned AoKs in creating the discussion
between the two experts, language played an even bigger role. As stated above, one of the
characteristics that classifies something as an indigenous knowledge system is the use of a
different language. Every indigenous group has its own dialect. When being told the stories, the
leaders told us that they are not read to them, rather acted out as a play or simply recited. What
this means is that this medium of delivering a story is much more open to interpretation as it is
not written down or supported by pictures. It is clear that although they had the same
information, be it the fact that a tree grows or that a river flows, because of the way in which
each individual was influenced by emotion, language and reason while listening to the stories,
they reached different conclusions and interpretations opening the doors for discussion.

On the other hand, when trying to explain the existence of certain things such as a tree in this
case, it could be argued that its more beneficial to have one clear, specific and objective
explanation leading to one objective conclusion. Nonetheless, when focusing on the specific
way of knowing (WoK) being analyzed, according to ToK conventions, Indigenous Knowledge
Systems would become virtually inexistent. Consequently, this debate between experts, in this
case the leaders, is necessary in order to make make this WoK not only valid, but relevant for
further research. If there were nothing else to explore due to the lack of discussions and
disagreement between experts from this field, then the evolution and development of the WoK
would be hindered proving that disagreement is not only present within experts, but necessary.

Another AoK where debate between experts is common is the Natural Sciences. According to
the ToK guide (The Role of Emotion in Natural Science, 2016), this is one of the most reliable
AoKs as, in theory, emotion is left out of the equation when making a decision, so there is no
personal attachment to the investigation, and when there is debate it is purely based on facts. It
is said to be empirical as discussed in Alina Bradfords Article, Empirical Evidence: A Definition
(2015). In fact, since the 17th century, the basis of natural science comes from the systematic
use of the scientific method. It consists of the systemized observation, measurement, and
experimentation, along with the formulation, testing, and modification of a specific hypotheses
(Oxford English Dictionary, 2016). Nonetheless, debate is still a big part of this AoK. Physicist
Lawrence Bragg (1951) once said that the important thing in science is not so much to obtain
new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.

In an experiment carried out by a famous English personality Alan Davies attempts to answer
the proverbial question: how long is a piece of string? (BBC,2009). He went to various experts
in order to attempt to find the most accurate measurement of the string. This, however, was
impossible. There was no real method to determine the accurate length of a simple piece of
string as all of the experts had a different method to approach the experiment. For example,
Oxford University Professor and scientist Marcus du Sautoy, concluded that length of the piece
of string was infinite as it could be broken down repeatedly, infinitely to be precise as it is
divided into fractals. However, scientist and professor Becky Parker, using the same string
concluded that the string was in fact infinite but disagreed with the why. She said that it was
infinite because of Quantum Mechanics. Disagreement between the two existed. This is once
again because of the influence that the AoK has on the individual. For instance, reason plays a
huge part in this as the analysis behind the data and the method used to approach the issue is
influenced by the different knowledge each individual has within the same field of study.
Language is also present as it influences the way in which information is interpreted.

Additionally, as previously stated, the lack of emotion is vital to the decision making process
within the Natural Sciences. Nonetheless, it is impossible to exclude emotion and hence
personal opinions from reaching a decision. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people
with damage in the brains Orbitofrontal cortex where emotions are generated (Damasio, 2000).
He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all
had something peculiar in common: they couldnt make decisions. They could describe what
they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple
decisions, such as what to eat. This proves that even the most logical of decisions are based
on emotion. Thus, unknowingly, all of these AoKs created the debate between the experts of the
same field.

When answering the question, it is possible to have disagreement between experts because of
interpretation and the WoKs that influence this. As seen in the examples stated within this
essay, no matter how hard one tries to get rid of disagreement or make something objective, it
is not only impossible because of the influence of different WoKs, but they are also necessary
for the development of each individual AoK. It is foolish to believe that we will ever live in a
world where disagreement between experts within the same field will be non-existent. On the
contrary, we as a society should push for these disagreements as they open the doors for
further reach and deeper analysis, hence filling gaps on knowledge that may not have been
acknowledged beforehand.

References

Anonymous, How Long is a Piece of String, 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8363934.stm (12/2016)

Anonymous, The Copper Man

http://www.bigorrin.org/archive114.htm

Anonymous, Why the Salmon come to Squamish Waters

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/Why-The-Salmon-Come-To-The-Squamish-
Waters-Squamish.html

Anonymous, How Long is a Piece of String,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8363934.stm (12/2016)

Anonymous, The Role of Emotion in Natural Science,

http://theoryknowledge.weebly.com/connections-to-aoks2.html, (02/2017)

Bastian, Sue et al (2008). Theory of Knowledge. London: Pearson.

Bradford, Alina, Empirical Evidence: A Definition, 2015, http://www.livescience.com/21456-

empirical-evidence-a-definition.html (02/2017)

Bragg, Lawrence, The Apple and the Spectroscope , 1951

Brown, Dan, The Lost Symbol, 2009

Camp, Jim, Decisions Are Emotional, Not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-
behind-decision-making (12/2016)

Damasio, Antonio, The Importance of Feelings

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528151/the-importance-of-feelings/ (12/2016)

Damasio, Hanna, Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex,2000

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599/Emotion-Decision-Making-
and-the-Orbitofrontal (02/2107)

Davies, Alan, How Long is a Piece of String, 2009

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-long-piece-string/ (12/2016)

Du Sautoy, Marcus, https://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk (12/2016)

Dunn, Michael. Defining indigenous knowledge (26th September 2014).

theoryofknowledge.net. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/indigenous-
knowledge-systems/defining-indigenous-knowledge/ (12/2016)

Evans, Dylan (2003). Emotion: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/indigenous-knowledge-systems/,
(12/2016)

http://www.squamish.net, (12/2016)

http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/the-natural-sciences/, (12/2016)