Given the 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.

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Number
Date
Theory of Knowledge
Experts may disagree concerning the truth and validity of facts in a given discipline. A disagreement may stretch from the resulting explanation to a given phenomenon, methods of analyzing data, assumptions made by the facts and the hypothesis raised. The different perspectives of the same fact are molded by factors such as personal experience, history, culture, belief and environment which are all bound to change with time. Disagreements may arise by putting forward supporting claims and counterclaims with the aim of achieving a common central ground. However, a neutral ground is an opportunity to reconcile supporting claims and conflicting claims though this is not always the case. The reconcilability of the disagreeing claims over a common factor is based on the nature and strength of each claim.
The element of rationality is pivotal while accessing supporting and counterclaims of any given facts. Rational disagreements are limited to individuals who can provide an explanation or outcome of a given fact based on the study of history and personal life experiences. They mainly encompass great thinkers in any particular area of knowledge and their contribution towards the theory of knowledge (Lehrer, 59). Irrational disagreements are based on emotions and availability bias of generalizing factual information.
Every area of knowledge has a throng of complexities and related problems which call on philosophers for an explanation.

However, this creates a loophole for analyzing the various perspectives of any given discipline with the aim of addressing issues raised (Lehrer, 150). Ethics as an area of knowledge is graced with several complexities that tempt to explain the approach used to determine whether an argument is morally “good” or “bad.” Various views can be raised to address what is right and wrong based on a moral judgment. We must acknowledge that ethics matter among those who are interested in living the right way.
The issue of what defines the right way to live is not only based on personal opinions and personal history but is also dependent on the religious views. Each religion has its writings which define morality and the instructions related to each doctrine for its followers. Believers, therefore, have to act according to the wishes of God by following the scriptures and obeying the laid moral themes. Weil Simone (109-1943) is a French philosopher who will be remembered for her thoughts and opinions on what is ethically right and wrong based on a religious view (Michael, Dunn). The problem arises in the interpretation of the scriptures, and this explains why we have split religions with each making attempts to convince the world that they are solely qualified to define how humans should live.
Atheists and agnostics still question the validity of the existence of God who has control over the universe. The lack of holy texts to draw their arguments from does not implicate that their claims and arguments are baseless. Instead, they deploy a rational approach to explaining what is morally right and wrong. However, this creates a different ground of digressing perceptions on ethics. Atheists believe that morality is not God-given and instead claims it’s a personal responsibility. However, they propose several views on ethics ranging from moral universalism and moral relativism. Moral universalism relies on the notion that human beings should have a single and universal ethical position regardless of their ethnicity, culture or even sex. Moral relativism on the other side relies on how personal actions should be justified and judged by the current time, circumstances or the culture boundaries. Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British American atheist who asserted that believing in an impotent God may lead to the dictatorial subjugation of an individual (Michael, Dunn).
Moral nihilists refute and critic arguments made by believers and atheists claiming that nothing is morally right or wrong. I would classify claims made by moral nihilists as irrational since they lack a concrete ground to base their arguments. Every human being has conscious that tends to judge what is morally right and wrong regardless of one’s perception on religious views. Instincts judge people whenever they act out of ignorance of what is ethically good and evil. It is, therefore, unrealistic to claim that nothing is morally right and wrong yet most people tend to oppose their conscious. A real life situation would question why most crimes are committed at night and when there are few individuals to notice such wicked acts. If nothing were ethically right or wrong, then criminals would commit their offenses while in the proximity of law enforcement officers or the public without panic.
There exists a relationship between facts and theories which tends to explain why experts in a given discipline may have digressing views. Supporting and counterclaims may be factual or theoretical based on the current context of the situation. Facts are used to develop theories that help us understand our present. History as an area of knowledge explores the interaction between past events and the current lifestyle. It is hard to fathom living in a society without knowledge of the past. The community needs its collective past to understand and interpret the present state. Disparity occurs when accessing how experts relate and use historical information to explain current events and phenomena. History has consistently been rewritten and therefore demeaning the actual meaning of some past events.
History applies objective empirical knowledge to study current events through comprehensive analysis of past events. Historians must consider logical fallacies related to historical facts to avoid false generalization and misinterpretation of history. Each ruling regime is keen to maintain and uphold past and present history through anniversary commemorations and celebrations. This is a nationalistic motive of uniting a nation through patriotic sentiments of the citizens. However, the dawn of nationalism in most nations came with various hurdles that cannot be overlooked. In the quest for welcoming independence, a country may sink in turmoil as dwellers fight for power. This has caused prolonged conflicts in multiethnic nations as each group is always fighting for power.
History educates on the importance of discerning the relative value of digressing viewpoints and deploying hard evidence to test proposed hypothesis. The result is coming up with a structured conclusion. Sometimes historians are tempted to analyze issues beyond their remit based on academic training. However, the role and validity of a historian can be limited if he/she permits politics to bias their research and understanding of history. Historians should, therefore, avoid subject areas that are not within their immediate training. Oxford historians, A.J.P. Taylor (1906-1990) and Hugh Trevor-Roper (1914-2003) contrasted on what were the causes of the Second World War (Michael, Dunn). Hugh was trained in classics and modern history while Taylor was trained on the European diplomacy and political history. Taylor blamed Hitler for the outbreak of the Second World War which caused a historical paradigm in Europe during the 19th and 20th century. Trevor-Roper, on the other hand, premiered in Hitler’s diary episode which tarnished his role as an aristocratic Oxford historian.
There exists a disparity between shared access and the common perception of facts. History tends to emphasize on the difference between palatable and unpalatable truths. Some historical information is often exaggerated and therefore challenging to decipher and make sound conclusions. Historians may also be tempted to either take a positive or a negative stand on past historical events. Most colonial masters feel a great sense of guilt due to their colonial past which may force them to mask their past. Historians from the west have continually condemned imperial policy with the aim of concealing their deeds from the international community. However, historians from the colonized nations will take a digressing route to display the atrocities caused by their colonial masters. This then qualifies to explain why experts in a similar discipline may have digressing opinions on same factual information in any area of knowledge.
Each area of knowledge is subject to complexity where experts may contrast despite being presented with similar facts. An expert’s perspective is based on individual interest, the credibility of the facts, and the environment (Lehrer, 167). Ethics and History are broad areas of knowledge and therefore prone to generalization, misinterpretation, prejudice based on irrational disagreement, and unreliable information. However, there also arises a problem in following the logical conclusions laid out by various philosophers in each area of knowledge. The artistic license deployed by various scholars is subject to questioning as this may create a loophole for realizing reality from factual information. The bottom line is an attempt to reconcile disagreeing experts by establishing a neutral ground to review supporting and counter claims.
Work Cited
Lehrer, Keith. Theory of knowledge. Routledge, 2015.
Dunn, Michael. Key thinkers on history (3rd December 2013).
theoryofknowledge.net. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/history/key-thinkers-on-history/ Last accessed: 25th November 2016
Dunn, Michael. Key thinkers on ethics (3rd December 2013).
theoryofknowledge.net. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/ethics/key-thinkers-on-ethics/ Last accessed: 25th November 2016