Tok Essay Draft 1

Title 5: 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.

It is very common for events to occur in which ‘experts’ in a certain discipline may have disagreements on the same topics. These experts have all been taught the same knowledge in their field, and the same understanding of the correct factors required to come to an ‘expert’ opinion on a topic.However, even in these circumstances, they might come to two different conclusions. There are a variety of ways in which this event could occur, in all types of disciplines. Before attempting to understand how this might happen, first the terms ‘disciplines’ and ‘experts’ must be defined. A discipline is a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education.This essay will focus on Areas of Knowledge such as human sciences, and the Arts. The term expert however is no as easily understood, because it is essentially defined as a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. This is quite a loose term, as it does not require an expert to have ‘concrete’ knowledge. While some areas are more abstract, like art, and so it becomes harder to define an expert. Finally, it is important to distinguish between disagreement on a moral level and on an ethical level. Disagreement on a moral level tends to rely on emotion, faith or intuition as a way of knowing, thus making the spread of knowledge more difficult. Disagreement on an ethical level aids the spread of ideas without the emotional blockage, meaning i tis easier to spread knowledge an progress. Therefore relying of WOKS such as reason, language, and memory. This will also lead us to question to what extent expertise necessarily result in a correct answer, and wether expertise decisions should be objective and to what extent.

The first area of knowledge that will be examined is Art. Art Critics, or ‘Experts’ often have differing opinions regarding the quality of works. Some critics believe that good art is one that successfully sends a message, and manages to resonate emotion to the audience. According to the New York Times, Good Art should be Judged based off of the following factors- Inexhaustibility Originality, ,Skill, Content, Form , Emotional content, Intention behind it,Reactions. Experts may use Reason to judge the skill used, base off of their knowledge of ‘complex’ skills used in the works. However arguably the most common from of judging art is based off of Way of knowing such as Sense perception and emotion. If the work manages to evoke strong emotion in the audience then it is considered of quality. However it more complex to trust an Art Expert as it is a very subjective topic whereby opinions are based off of personal insight. Each person perceives art works differently, and something that will resonate with one person ugh not evoke anything in another. A work may be judged based on memory, as the work becomes a reminder of something and thus form an emotional connection., and thus Experts might come to different opinions on how well the work evoked emotion, even if they have the same facts presented to them, and the same education therefore evaluating the work under the same criterions. In the area of art there can be disagreements between experts as shown before, however you then need to consider how relevant these opinions are, as they are both relatively subjective, and each person might have their own persona ideas. This then brings up the question of weather a persons expertise results in a correct answer, as in terms of the quality, they have more expertise on the techniques used and so their reasoning may be trusted. However when regarding an art works quality based off of emotion, an expert does not necessarily have the most credibility, as they are themselves biased. An example of disagreements in an Art Discipline is Damian Hearsts ‘for the love of God’. sculpture. This is a very controversial work.There are both negative and positive opinions of 'For the love of God'. To some the skull is perfect representation of death and the glory of it. However to most the skull is a publicity stunt by Hirst to get more media attention and to raise the value of his artworks. Some experts see it as a complex work of art that used complex

techniques and is of good quality. In contrast, others see it as imitation and not very hard to create. This disagreement based of the complexity of the technique is based off of reason and the experts knowledge on what is difficult art to create. This demonstrates how there can be disagreements when presented with the same facts. However there are arguments bases off of the experts emotional connection to the work and the meaning they found from it.Some found it a perfect presentations of death and glory, connecting to their emotions, while some found it a cliche which does not evoke any emotion. These are subjective beliefs and cannot be considered a disagreement based off of the same facts.

In the area of ethics in combination with law, you rely on experience and culture (parental guidance, social norms, education) to develop an understanding of the legislative laws of the country you live in, and to develop an understanding that these laws apply to you even if you don't want them to. While it can be argued that a country legislative laws are examples of objective knowledge within the context of that country as they are community owned and accepted knowledge and can also be expressed as propositions. For example, in most if not all Western Countries, Polygamy is illegal, so in the context and culture of Western society, this can be regarded as a true propositional statement.To develop sound understanding this law, all citizens, even those who disagree with the morality of the law, must understand that the law applies to them and must all interpret the law the same way. However, In some countries, Polyamory is legal and even encouraged. Those laws were decided upon by the government, who seemingly based off of the same facts, as they were all taught law, and morals, however different government officials came to two different conclusions. When regarding this law, they used Reason to establish the morality of it. Reason is defined as the cause, explanation, or justification. that we use whenever we make a decision, and most of the time, our reasoning occurs instinctively, as we decide on the best path to take almost unconsciously, depending on previous experiences involving similar situations, and so part of our reasoning also coincides with our memory.

Polygamy is an alternative to divorce in case of some marital problems. Instead of divorcing a sick or infertile wife, Islam permits a man to marry another woman while taking care of the first if she chooses to stay with him.

The teachings of Islam, including polygamy, conform to human nature. Men and women differ in their desire for sexual variety. These differences are universal. According to evolutionary scientists men are “hard-wired” to procreate. Men everywhere - whether single or married - want more sexual partners than women do. The Islamic solution provides the only responsible alternative to the naturally ingrained desire in men Islamic polygamy addresses the social problems of prostitution and extramarital affairs common in the West. Instead of cheating - infidelity is one of the top reasons for divorce in the West - Islam allows a man to marry more than one wife, with full recognition of the rights of all of them. The basic principle in Islam is that men are held responsible for their behaviour towards women. In addition, according to Islam, the number of women in the world exceeds that of men. The surplus is a result of men dying in wars, violent crimes, and women outliving men. The upsurge in homosexuality further increases the problem. According to Islamist Experts, it is an ‘’obvious injustice that those women who, by arithmetical necessity, must remain unmarried should be wholly debarred from sexual experience.” thereby solving this problem wth Polygamy. It is also encouraged in the Koran. Therefore, faith is also used to establish their reasonings. Both groups of experts are presented with the same facts with both morality agreements, and with the same worldwide statistics and ways to solve them, While one group decides to pursue other means to deal with the surplus of women, the other gourd turns to polymers. They both use Reason, and come to a disagreement. However, while different cultures and context can be regarded as simply another factor in the disagreement, you can also question of this is even a disagreement as there is such a vast difference between the two groups. While objectively they are given access to the same facts, the two gourd of

experts are accustomed to such different cultures, that it is almost impossible to come to the same conclusion. You need to question the role of culture and context in impacting objective views, are they are objective because they are simply a part of the experts culture an so they do not question it, and their reasoning is all based off their culture, or does the reasoning become subjective because they are taking into account their own faith and intuition in the interpretation of the facts. And so it can be considered that they have not been given the same facts, as they are both also combining their own cultures as facts’. And so rather than being a moral decision, it becomes an ethical one, not based of off concrete evidence but of intuition based of culture.

In conclusion, initially when writing this essay I was confused on how when given the exact same facts, experts who have the same knowledge and understanding may come to completely opposite conclusions. However this became evident to me after writing this essay. I began to understand the effect that ways of knowing such as intuition, faith, memory and emotion and the extent that it affects the opinions of the expert. It came clear that although seemingly experts should and do come to unbiased conclusions, it is impossible to not be swayed by outside forces such as cultures and context. This essay demonstrates to what extent experts opinions can be considered valid compared to others, especially when considering more subjective disciplines such as art. In contrast this essay also demonstrates how to the same extents there are cases whereby it is impossible given the same facts to come to different conclusions. The essay answers the question by demonstrating that it is possible to disagree on a topic given the same information, as the facts are no the only factor affecting an opinion, and most opinions are based of off subjective beliefs.