Peter F. Drucker, an American author, once said, "Knowledge has to be constantly improved, challenged, and increased, or it will vanish." Knowledge mainly consists of information, skills, and opinions obtained through life opportunities, encounters with individuals, education, and life lessons. In today's modern world, we pursue knowledge because it is useful for obtaining information. For many years, humans have strived to gain advanced levels of knowledge and information. In my opinion, a disagreement is the opposite of logic; it contradicts or opposes evidence that has otherwise been proven true. Disagreements act as obstacles that hinder the pursuit of knowledge. The idea of disagreement can be connected to the two important ways of knowing: perception and reasoning. There are three main forms of disagreement: religious, individual, and idealistic disagreements. statements about the world. However, when disagreements arise, they provide an opportunity for individuals to challenge their own beliefs and assumptions, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter. In fact, it is through the process of overcoming disagreements that scientific theories are refined and improved, ultimately leading to a more accurate understanding of the natural world. Therefore, it can be concluded that disagreements are not only useful but necessary in the pursuit of knowledge.
From a very early age, perhaps the age of six or seven, I realized that I enjoyed disputing things. As I grew older, I attempted to curb this tendency, since I thought it might negatively impact people’s views of me, but I never intended to stamp it out, as it was too integral to my nature.
The basic idea is that when two contrasting worldviews are brought into contact, and result in conflict has to be resolved to solve some problem, this is likely to stimulate some cognitive restructuring – some learning and understanding (Mercer, 1996: 360).
American social psychologist and original developer of the theory of Cognitive Dissonance Leon Festinger breaks down his theory into two main parts. First, the presence of dissonance, inconsistency or unpleasantness, will psychologically motivate a person to achieve consonance, consistency or pleasantness (Festinger 3). Psychologist Elliot Aronson, key researcher in the 20th century of this theory, expands on the definition of dissonance to be more straightforward. Dissonance occurs when a person holds two ideas, beliefs, or opinions at the same time that are contradictory with one and other. Part two of the theory states that a person will attempt to avoid situations or knowledge that would possibly or pro...
Cognitive dissonance is a communication theory mostly used in the field of social psychology in providing a theoretical framework in dealing with various issues relating to psychology. The title provides us with the concept that cognitive is thinking while dissonance is the inconsistency or conflict brought about. Cognitive dissonance manifests when one holds two or more incompatible beliefs simultaneously. This theory has been used and applied in several disciplines including communication, due to its simplicity and straightforwardness. The theory is commonly applied in these dynamic fields since it replaces previous conditioning or reinforcement theories by viewing individuals as more purposeful decision makers striving to acquire a balance in their beliefs. Cognitions are chunks or bits of knowledge which can pertain to any variety of values, emotions or values. These cognations can be related to one another or they can also be completely independent from each other (Cooper, 06). For instance, one may like to eat junk food, but may also be trying to lose weight. The two cognitions are related to each other in tha...
Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty can be understood with the proper perspective and background. The certainty principle explains that knowledge requires evidence to be “sufficient” to rule out the possibility of error. This means that what we determine to be acknowledged as “knowledge” must present justification in order to be accepted believed as knowledge. This is important because Skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge and how we come to any such conclusion of justifying what we “know” indubitably as knowledge. This is the overarching problem with skepticism. Instead of having a solid stance on how to define knowledge, skeptics simply doubt that a reason or proposition offered is correct and suppose it to be false or flawed in some manner. See the examples below as identifiers of the skeptic way of life.
The desire for consistency can go beyond rational thought or force a person to rationalize when things are out of line. People find comfort in knowing what to expect. When what is known and believed is challenged, people are disrupted and forced to make a decision on how to process conflicting information. To avoid the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, people may ignore opposing views, examine and change their views to maintain consistency with their actions or even seek reassurance (Defining Communication Theories, 2001).
...k disagree and learn that disagreement may be a useful and even productive means of growth and acceptance towards a more accepting tomorrow.
To believe something is to know it so in order to know something, it is not enough to believe it- you have to learn it or have a good reason to believe it. Skepticism talks about two types of position: knowledge and justification. The skeptic argues that we do not know what we think we do it is only a thought. Skepticism of knowledge says there is no such thing as knowledge, and justification denies the belief of justified belief existing. These two are closely related which depends on the relationship between the factors of knowledge and justification: if knowledge entails justified belief, as theorists say, then justification skepticism entails knowledge skepticism. Gettier and Nozick broke down the subject and explain their point of views of it. To defend these views, skeptics lay out many requirements for knowledge or justified belief, and try to show that these requirements are not met. It still stand that’s why if I know something and I believe it that which I claim knowledge then why do I need a reason to believe it? Is black white?
The search of the truth and the power it produces cause internal conflict during one’s
Knowledge can be a great attainment but an excess of it can lead to doubt. Doubt forms because we tend to rely on our feelings to decide what is real and what is not, but why is that wrong? It’s simple, our feelings are not absolute. Although, everything we know we base off of our emotions and interactions with an object so why question it? We question our feelings because we cannot be sure if they are true or not. We try to justify them with claims so the feelings can be proven. Since our feelings fail to eliminate the doubt set in our minds because they are limited and undependable, we turn to reason through ideas to comprehend our thoughts. We become so unsure due to the factors that come into play when making a decision. Doubt can cause strong minds to flutter therefore making us question the credibility of our feelings. Allowing doubt to seep through, leads to a never ending battle of thoughts. Can I really trust my feelings? As you begin to reflect on your attitude towards the subject, you start to make assumptions about other’s attitudes on the subject. This reflection deepens the doubt in your once firm comprehension. Although we have reason to not doubt ourselves since we think we are right and others might also agree, it still does not answer the question of how do we know that that certain object is reality and who...
Interpersonal conflict is very common with many relationships. It occurs when two people can not meet in the middle or agree on a discussion. Cooperation is key to maintaining a healthy debate. More frequently; when dealing with members of your own family, issues arise that include conflict and resolution. During this process our true conflict management style appears “out of thin air”. (Steve A. Beebe, 2008, p. 191).
Michael Eisner is an American entertainment executive, whose leadership in the 1980s and 1990s revitalized the Walt Disney Company. Born in New York City, Eisner was educated at Denison University, where he studied literature and theater. After graduating in 1964, he worked for six weeks as a clerk at NBC and then briefly in the programming department at CBS. His career crystallized at ABC, which he joined as a programming assistant in 1966 and where he spent the next ten years, ultimately becoming senior vice president of prime-time production and development. Eisner's rise through the corporate ranks was paralleled by ABC's leap from third place to first place in the network viewing ratings. In 1976 he was named president and CEO of Paramount Pictures. During his eight-year tenure the motion-picture studio moved from last place to first place among the six major studios. In 1984 Eisner left Paramount to become chairman and chief executive of Walt Disney Productions (renamed the Walt Disney Company in 1986). Eisner admired Walt Disney and was especially interested in children's programming and family entertainment. The company's success included several feature-length animated films in the Disney tradition.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
In the wide ocean upon which we venture, the possible ways and directions are many; and the same studies which have served for my work might easily, in other hands, not only receive a wholly different treatment and application, but lead to essentially different conclusions." [Jacob Burckhardt]
The opinions of experts are handy in the search of knowledge; however their opinions are a double edge sword – The knowledge of experts act as building blocks to our own thoughts, but sometimes the experts may be incorrect, and their beliefs lead seekers down the wrong path. Experts often do this when new ideas are purposed. They may disprove newer ideas in order to stay relevant, like when evolution was purposed. The benefits that experts can provide in the search for knowledge can be important but often times are more a hindrance. Experts act in some ways as a neighbor shouting to you as you walk around the block but are not as fundamental emotion, sense, perception, and language in the search for knowledge. The opinions are useful when reasoning especially in regards to the History, Human Science and Natural Science Areas of Knowledge.