Regarding the question of how it is possible that, given the same facts pertaining to a discipline, experts may still disagree, it is important to recognize that even the most established facts are subject to interpretation. This is critical because, depending on each expert’s viewpoint, the facts may then be used to support a specific idea or more likely potential. Complicating the matter further is that certain areas of knowledge rely more on subjectivity itself, as in ethics, the arts, and history. “Fact” becomes more a matter of strength of argument, but it also remains true that even documented facts of science and past events often conflict, and because differing ideas place differing levels of meaning on them. The facts are facts but they are also instruments to be used to enforce specific ways of thinking. By examining two disciplines, in fact, it is seen that disputes over facts all the more emphasize the impact of expert interpretation. The following then employs the natural science of meteorology and the discipline of history to reveal how facts gain or lose meaning by virtue of how experts choose to identify them as valid, and utilize them in arguments.
A discipline marked by extreme debate today is that of meteorology, in terms of the atmosphere and climate change. It is widely understood that the vast majority of scientists today insist on facts as proving that man-made influences are contributing to global warming, and that life in general is threatened by the changes. This being the case, facts are continually used to either support that human activity is a significant cause of climate change or that what the world is experiencing is only a natural, and historically documented, process. It also becomes evident that social, commercial, and political concerns influence how experts present and interpret the facts. Geological and fossil evidence, for example, clearly demonstrates that radical climate change has long been an ordinary reality. Hundreds of millions of years ago, glaciers existed on or near the Equator. Later, in the Mesozoic era, carbon dioxide dominated the atmosphere and intense warming of the planet occurred (USDI). W
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Theory of Knowledge Essay".
ith such changes in climate came shifts in land and water masses, which in turn further affected the atmosphere. Experts then dismissive of man-made factors tend to insist on this factual reality. If the climate is changing, they argue, the facts reinforce that it has happened since the earth’s beginnings and with enormous impacts, and this interpretation of the facts lessens any idea of human factors as responsible for it today. Conversely, other experts acknowledge climate change of the past, but emphasize evidence strongly indicating that industrialization is creating the modern changes. The facts they note link the rise of industry with the increased warming: 典he average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades�(UCS). What then becomes clear is that interpretation of facts, as in which each expert chooses to stress as most important, leads to disagreement within the discipline.
The discipline of history presents even greater possibilities of disagreement over facts, and if only because what has occurred in the past, no matter actual information and events recorded, is difficult to understand. There is no escaping the reality that context is usually only minimally known, or that varying motivations and forces led to events which are challenged by modern experts and critics. A powerful example of how history is disputed between experts is seen in how the actions of Christopher Columbus have been variously interpreted over the years. It is largely accepted that Columbus did in fact make his voyages to the New World, and pave the way for European expansion into the Americas.
These basic facts then greatly influenced how history was taught, with Columbus venerated as a brave explorer. Later evidence, however, affirmed that the agenda in place was both mercenary and oppressive. For example, in a letter to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, Columbus made it clear that the Native Americans he had captured in the islands and was sending to them were more valuable than the Guinea slaves Spain had relied upon (Resendez 24). At the same time, experts in the past as well as today emphasize other facts, as in the introductions of domestic animals and foods previously unknown to island natives (Mann 11). Dispute continues because varying experts choose to emphasize the facts or Columbus’ impact as beneficial or as that of a conqueror. For some, Columbus was a pioneer, a great man, and the force behind New World exploration; for others, he was a corrupt and inhumane adventurer. Once again, then, reality is subject to debate because the facts are presented in ways supporting specific arguments.
It is usual for many to believe that, once documented facts are uncovered, a reality is in place that cannot be contradicted. However, this ignores the greater reality that facts are essentially only instruments, and may be used to support whatever an expert chooses to reinforce as truth. This is seen in many disciplines, just as the issues of climate change and historical revision underscore it. Ultimately, the natural science of meteorology and the discipline of history serve to illustrate how facts gain or lose meaning, and through how experts choose to identify them as valid and employ them in arguments.
