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.

Did the universe begin with a bang or through seven days of creation? Contrasting

opinions about everything always exist. There are hardly moments wherein people, even

experts, completely agree. Experts have been studying a specific discipline, have had rigorous

training. The facts they are exposed to refer to events, data, and information that experts in that

discipline consider valid. Disagreements are differences in how facts are interpreted. Lastly, a

discipline is a specific field of study. Conflicts can arise since experts argue on facts themselves,

use confirmation bias to prove their side, have differences in personal schemata that influence

interpretations, and utilize advancements in technology. In both the natural and human sciences,

disagreements can occur.

Despite the expectations that scientists shouldn’t disagree because of their reliance on

reason, they often do. The 17th century debate concerning preformationism and epigenesis

represents two perspectives on embryological development and exemplifies disagreements in

science. Preformationists believed offspring had preformed parts, while epigenesists argued

reactions of the sperm and ovary resulted in development.1 Jan Swammerdam in the 1670’s

conducted experiments that showed insects’ adult structures in the larval stages. Marcellus

Malpighi observed the same with chicken embryos, which he argued only needed to grow as

their organs were already formed. Meanwhile, naturalists researching epigenesis sought to

support their theories defending that undifferentiated materials gradually formed the organisms’

embryonic features.2 In 1651, William Harvey studied fertilized deer and sought to encounter

1
“The Great Debate: Preformation versus Epigenesis,” Encyclopedia.com, accessed February 15, 2017,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-debate-preformation-
versus-epigenesis.
2
Ibid.
developing embryos. It took him seven weeks to find any sign of the embryo.3 He also looked at

chicken embryos, and still defended that embryos developed through the addition of parts.4

These experts dedicated work into supporting their sides and disagreed with the other’s

findings. Both had access to each others publications and could have made observations using

microscopes yet had contrasting ideas.5 The contradictory information occurred as the debate

continued for more than a century later.

Both preformationists and those who studied epigenesis were aware of the other side’s

studies and acclaimed facts. They had fundamental disagreements, rendering it impossible for

them to agree on information that followed the arguments. They conducted experiments and

reported what supported their beliefs. For example, both Malpighi and Harvey worked with

chicken embryos, but reached different conclusions. Their preexisting notions on development

affected how they interpreted the facts. Despite several experts working to find answers, their

disagreements on what they considered to be factual information as a result of experimentation

and bias while observing inhibited them from agreeing. The lack of visible parts could have

resulted from lack of magnification argued the preformationists thus they could reject some of

the claims made by the other camp. Therefore, the paradigm under which scientists operate will

determine how they interpret data ergo causing disagreements.

The human sciences, which try and explain how and why humans behave the way they do,

also face differing interpretations. A renowned debate in economics is the argument of

Keynesian economics versus the neoclassical theory for aggregate supply. Both John Maynard

3
Lois Magner and K. Lee Lerner, “Embryology - History of Embryology As A Science,” ​Net Industries​, last modified
2017, http://science.jrank.org/pages/2451/Embryology-History-embryology-science.html.
4
​“The Great Debate: Preformation versus Epigenesis,” accessed February 15, 2017.

5
​Lois Magner and K. Lee Lerner, “Embryology - History of Embryology As A Science,” last modified 2017.
Keynes, the founder of Keynesian economics, and Friedrich Hayek, a neoclassical economist,

were prominent economists of the 20th century.6 Their conflicting theories regarding aggregate

supply, the total amount of goods and services a nation’s economy produced over a period of

time,7 still plague economists to this day. Their ideas arose when the Global Depression hit, the

solutions for the recovery from recessions. Keynesian economics promotes government

intervention; government control of the business cycle by tax manipulation and spending in the

public sector. The neoclassical view envisions the market to correct the recession with time.

Neoclassical economists think that there should be more economic freedom where people invest

in long term projects to prompt sustainable growth.8 Keynes was even famous for saying “in the

long run, we are all dead”,9 because he strongly disagreed with waiting out a recession unlike

Hayek. Their opposing perspectives about the nature of markets made their conclusions

incommensurable​. Disagreements in the human sciences also result from different paradigms.

Keynes and Hayek had two opposite analyses of the Great Depression. Both suggested

solutions to recessions, but mutually rejected the other side’s proposal. They were exposed to

the same circumstance but formed two opposing schools of thought. The paradigm under which

they operated resulted from their experiences. Keynes was known to have developed his theory

in 1919 when harsh conditions were given to Germany in Versailles. He disagreed with the

policies for Germany, and he expounded on his theory about the future effects on the economy in

6
“Keynes v Hayek: Two economic giants go head to head,” ​BBC​, last modified August, 3, 2011,
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14366054.
7
“Aggregate Supply,” ​Investopedia,​ accessed February 17, 2017,
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/aggregatesupply.asp.
8
“Keynes vs. Hayek: The Rise of the Chicago School of Economics,” ​Econedlink​, accessed February 16, 2017,
http://www.econedlink.org/lesson/593/Keynes-vs-Hayek-Rise-Chicago-School-Economics.
9
Simon Taylor, “The true meaning of “In the long run we are all dead”,” ​Simon Taylor’s Blog,​ May 5, 2013,
http://www.simontaylorsblog.com/2013/05/05/the-true-meaning-of-in-the-long-run-we-are-all-dead/.
a book.10 It can be seen how there might have been an unconscious factor that influenced his

thinking process. Because of his political view concerning Germany’s welfare, he concluded that

intervention is beneficial. Hayek, who was not exposed to it, did not formulate his ideas on the

same basis. Their individual schema, shaped their respective paradigms and contributed to their

theories’ development, which was the basis of their disagreement.

Yet, backgrounds also interfere with interpretations in the natural sciences. In 1999 for

example, two primatologists observing monkeys in Indonesia yielded different conclusions.11

Two experts watching the same scene reported distinct observations. One primatologist focused

more on adult male and infant relationships, while the other noticed interactions between adults.

One primatologist admitted that ingrained beliefs and expectations about how the monkeys

would act allowed them to witness contradictory situations. He admits that training in different

perspectives fostered non-identical interpretations.12 This is observed with Keynes and Hayek,

since their backgrounds led them to different paths. At times, experts reach diverging

conclusions because of unconscious expectations embedded through their own unique schema,

possibly developed by past experiences. In a world where so much is happening, it is possible to

consider some things over others when reaching conclusions. In the grand scheme of things,

there are multiple truths in the world, supporting that varying schemata can be good. Different

perspectives allow for a plethora of discoveries, and more knowledge can be built this way. If

everyone operated identically, it would be monotonous and there would most likely be less

knowledge in the world.

10
“John Maynard Keynes,” ​The Famous People​, accessed February 15, 2017,
http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/john-maynard-keynes-191.php.
11
​Agustín Fuentes, ​Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You​ (University of California Press, 2012), 27-28.
12
​Fuentes, ​Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You​, 27-28.
 The examples above explain reasons why experts in a discipline can disagree. Firstly, the

issue of contradicting what facts are in the first place can occur. This is aligned with reason, a

way of knowing, since experts utilise heuristics to build theories. When experts do not consider

the same facts, their reasoning can lead their arguments on separate paths. Similarly, they may

consider some facts to be more important. Although both their arguments may make sense to

experts on their side, they are incommensurable to others​. This is true for both the natural and

human sciences, with preformationism versus epigenesis and Keynes versus Hayek. The

examples illustrate the difficulty in reaching a consensus when there is no common ground,

which in this case is agreed upon facts.

Interestingly, cases wherein both developed theories can be accepted exist, like with

Keynes and Hayek. One economy may thrive more with government intervention, and vice versa.

This shows that things can be true depending on setting, and knowledge is not limited to only

one theory. For preformationism and epigenesis, one side’s facts had to be correct. Technological

advancement allowed the discipline to settle this dispute.13 Eventually, the addition of

knowledge, in this case technology, allowed for the formation of knowledge. Old beliefs are

commonly debunked because of access to technology, which shows how knowledge should

evolve over time. Although facts can be a source of disagreement, further examination can

eventually point us in the right direction.

Secondly, confirmation bias show why experts obtain varying conclusions. Experts can

look at the same information, but may be unconsciously paying special attention to what proves

their point. Experts can relay information in a way that supports their arguments, like scientists

13
​Clara Pinto-Correia, ​The Ovary of Eve: Egg and Sperm Preformation​ (University of Chicago Press, 2007),
https://books.google.es/books?id=h4d5WFGpMgQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=o
nepage&q&f=false.
in the 17th century looking at chicken embryos presented evidence supporting their claims. With

the scientific method, people may be trying to prove their hypotheses, which can cloud

judgement with data collection. This is an issue of the methods in the area of knowledge itself,

also seen in the human sciences. Economics for example, includes experts making judgements

based on observations in the economy. Both areas of knowledge incorporate human judgement

for the establishment of knowledge.

Another reason regarding unconscious human error is an issue. People naturally perceive

things differently, experts included. Because of inherent variations in background and

experiences, sense perception as a way knowing is affected. People do not notice the same things,

and do not receive information identically because this process is affected by pre-existing

notions. Human experts interpret facts and because no two humans are completely identical in

personal schema, they are unable to make uniform pronouncements. This is what makes the

formation of knowledge an exciting pursuit, since people perceive individually and therefore

shed light on varying issues. Experts strive to solve certain problems and different problems can

be more effectively solved by different paradigms. Because situations are different, some

paradigms should be considered over others depending on what they are needed for. It is

advantageous that people have distinct views, allowing the world to be interesting and

constantly evolving.

At the end of the day, humans are unique and cannot be controlled to think and interpret

in the exact same way. Experts are no exception, although they are reliable since they spend their

lives dedicated to their fields. However, they should not be blamed because the pursuit of

knowledge is dynamic. It is reasonable to reach different conclusions, as long as there is constant

verification with the intent of discovering more. It is only with varying theories that one day,

truth can be found.

Word Count: 1597

Sources
"Aggregate Supply." Investopedia. July 31, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2017.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/aggregatesupply.asp.

"Embryology - History Of Embryology As A Science." Science. 2017. Accessed February 15, 2017.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2451/Embryology-History-embryology-science.html.

"The Great Debate: Preformation versus Epigenesis." Encyclopedia.com. 2001. Accessed

February 15, 2017.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/great-de
bate-preformation-versus-epigenesis​.

"John Maynard Keynes." The Famous People. Accessed February 10, 2017.
http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/john-maynard-keynes-191.php.

"Keynes v Hayek: Two economic giants go head to head." BBC News. August 03, 2011. Accessed
February 10, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14366054.

"Keynes vs. Hayek: The Rise of the Chicago School of Economics." EconEdLink. Accessed
February 10, 2017.
http://www.econedlink.org/lesson/593/Keynes-vs-Hayek-Rise-Chicago-School-Economics.

Kuhn, Thomas. ​The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.​ University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Pinto-Correia, Clara. ​The Ovary of Eve: Egg and Sperm Preformation.​ December 1, 2007. Accessed
February 15, 2017. ​https://books.google.es/books?id=h4d5WFGpMgQC&source=gbs_navlinks_s​.

Taylor, Simon. "The true meaning of "In the long run we are all dead"." Simon Taylor's Blog. May
05, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2017.
http://www.simontaylorsblog.com/2013/05/05/the-true-meaning-of-in-the-long-run-we-are-a
ll-dead/.