By contrast, the economists advocate that the government take a "hands off" policy. They believe that governments should allow the market to run freely, through the private sector. This view holds that there should be absolutely no intervention by the government, as this is held to be interference with the ability of a free economy to normalize itself. This appears to be in disagreement with the aforementioned theory that government involvement in the economy can be beneficial. (The Keynes-Hayek Showdown)
These two economic philosophies each have merits as well as flaws. However, these strongly supported and clashing views are a central cause of disagreement among economists to this day. Additionally, each philosophy hints at the way that these two economists think, and at their system of beliefs. Keynes came from a very liberal family and was open to radical ideas with regards to government intervention. Hayek, by contrast, was much more conservative and was brought up agreeing with the perspective that intervention only leads to greater issues in the future. This suggests that emotion may play a role in their points of view. They each have a bias towards what they have been brought up to believe. Emotion can, at times, skew our reasoning. This could have lead to holes or mistakes in their theories. They would have each needed to put their bias behind themselves as their counterpart was looking for flaws in their model.
It is evident that economics is not an exact science, as there are countless external factors that have an effect on the economy. This allows there to be two opposing theories, as results of a particular occurrence vary based on numerous reasons. For example, the result of an earthquake of the same magnitude has a very different effect on the economy in Japan than that in Haiti. Japan is far less vulnerable, and has measures in place to reduce damages. Therefore, it is clear that different theories are applicable and will be effective in different instances. When there are tangible issues such as unemployment that must be dealt with, economists of either ideology will attempt to come up with solutions. The solution that may be determined by a combination of multiple solutions represents some form of a compromise. This compromise was aided by the disagreement and the two opposing perspectives put forth. These two men were both driven by the desire to have their own model be the one that is deemed as correct. They therefore tried there best to find proof, and further their own models, fixing any gaps or issues with their theories. They also tried to falsify the other school of thought. The attempts to falsify the opposing school of thought is what lead them both to further their research so as to mend any outstanding issues. Finally, in this case, it greatly improved the models, and also allowed for a middle ground, which is the unified model that is used by the Canadian government. This model is one where the market is allowed to run freely, with occasional government intervention. In contrast, some believe that the advancement in the pursuit of knowledge could be achieved when we are in agreement; this would allow us to proceed much faster in the pursuit of knowledge. Also, having multiple different perspectives, in disagreement, leads to a muddy, more complex understanding of the situation, which is not positive for the average consumer. This makes it more difficult to gain knowledge on the subject, as the “correct” model is not clearly stated, and is a matter of opinion.
Disagreement plays a pivotal role in the natural sciences, since without it there would be no way to move forward. In the natural sciences there are specific criteria that must be met before a proposed law can be considered as knowledge. A scientific method consists of observation, hypothesizing and experiments. This is followed by the creation of a law that ultimately accumulates into a theory. The proposed law must be controllable, measurable, and repeatable to be considered a natural science. Disagreement may arise in terms of the set-up of experiment, procedure, collection of data or analysis. These disagreements will lead to new experimentations or research being conducted by those who disagree. This is aiding in the pursuit of knowledge. Karl Popper’s idea of falsification (proving something to be incorrect) makes disagreement pivotal in the pursuit of knowledge. Falsification can occur after a theory is created. A scientist’s duty includes trying their best to disprove the theory. This process reinforces and strengthens the theory. Through disagreement, scientists can possibly falsify more theories. Scientists may not notice errors in their own theories as they have an emotional bias to it. Therefore, peer review can lead to furthering scientific knowledge. Whilst disagreements are good, too many disagreements can halt or slow down the pursuit of knowledge. At some point, a general consensus is required. Otherwise, researchers may not know which direction they should take and may end up confused.
In 1905, Einstein hypothesized that nothing was faster than the speed of light. This stood as knowledge for many years and is present in textbooks and encyclopedias to this day. Antonio Ereditato, along with his group, named Opera; found that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. This finding is in disagreement with one of the most fundamental laws of physics, Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Ereditato explains that they “tried to find all possible explanations for this,” and everything lined up. He goes on to say that they “wanted to find a mistake – trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes or nasty effects,” but they did not. This is an attempt to disagree with their own findings, in an effort to find any issues that they could fix to make their findings more accurate. Once they have done this, they must release their findings to the rest of the scientific community. This, as expected was very controversial in the world of science, and lead to numerous similar experiments taking place. If this is eventually confirmed it will disprove Einstein’s theory that has lasted more than a century. Even if the idea with neutrinos is disproved, this disagreement has opened the door to the possibility that Einstein was wrong.
The creation-evolution controversy is the recurring dispute between Darwin’s evolution theory and the theological belief in Creationism. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. This is often viewed as the establishment of evolutionary biology. This was very much in disagreement with religious beliefs at the time. Numerous alt-Christians believed Darwin was being blinded by the Devil. This was an issue as disagreement was not condoned nor, in many cases, allowed. Darwin’s findings with regards to natural selection, and his disagreement with religion have created knowledge. His findings are now accepted, and presented in textbooks; though an uncensored copy of his book is still not available in bookstores in the United States. The result of his findings is that religious thinkers have affirmed both the significance and the reliability of historical accounts, whilst putting them in an evolutionary context. This view that is somewhat in between the two, is new knowledge that has been formed, as it is a unique perspective, despite belief in both evolution and creationism. Over time, scientific paradigms have been shifted numerous times to the ones that provide better explanations as scientists doubted the prior paradigms and endeavored to get better knowledge of our world. For those reasons, doubt plays a major role in pursuit of knowledge in the natural sciences.
In conclusion, it is evident that the ways of knowing things in the natural sciences greatly differ from that of the human sciences. In the natural sciences, once scientists receive a good concept, it is gradually refined and extended with increasing degrees of subtlety as instruments of measurement are improved (Asimov, 42). Theories, therefore, are usually not wrong, but more likely, incomplete. The human sciences allow for two theories, even opposing one’s, to stand as knowledge for an extended period of time. There may be two schools of thought that can remain, until one is entirely disproved. It is much harder to disprove a theory in the human sciences as a result of the inability to accurately predict the decisions of human beings. This study could be looked at to a greater extent, and we can generalize in saying that if people did not have disagreements and challenge the norm, society would not have evolved in the rapid way that it did.
Works Cited:
Hawking, S. W. The Illustrated On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Philadelphia: Running, 2004. Print.
Asimov, Isaac. The Skeptical Inquirer. The Relativity of Wrong. 1st ed. Vol. 14. New York, NY: Windsor Pub., 1989. 35-44. Print. The Skeptical Inquirer.
Pierre L. van den Berghe (1981). Multiple-level evolution: A disagreement to disagree. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, pp 253-254 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00008803
Ernest Nagel, “Some Issues in the Logic of Historical Analysis”, Scientific Monthly, LXXIV (1952), 162-199
Kelly, Thomas. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. Diss. Princeton University, n.d. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web.
Pierre L. van den Berghe (1981). Multiple-level evolution: A disagreement to disagree. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, pp 253-254 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00008803
"Neutrino 'faster than Light' Scientist Resigns." BBC News. BBC, 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Jan. 2013.
Durant, John. Ed. Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.
References:
Mr. Bales
Hawking, S. W. The Illustrated On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Philadelphia: Running, 2004. Print.
Asimov, Isaac. The Skeptical Inquirer. The Relativity of Wrong. 1st ed. Vol. 14. New York, NY: Windsor Pub., 1989. 35-44. Print. The Skeptical Inquirer.
Pierre L. van den Berghe (1981). Multiple-level evolution: A disagreement to disagree. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, pp 253-254 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00008803
Ernest Nagel, “Some Issues in the Logic of Historical Analysis”, Scientific Monthly, LXXIV (1952), 162-199
Kelly, Thomas. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. Diss. Princeton University, n.d. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web.
Pierre L. van den Berghe (1981). Multiple-level evolution: A disagreement to disagree. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, pp 253-254 doi:10.1017/S0140525X00008803
by
cbax1991 (student)
