Can Experts Disagree on the Same Facts?

Can Experts Disagree on the Same Facts?Prescribed form of address 5 Given access to the comparable facts, how is it possible that there evoke be disagreement between experts in a discipline? generate your answer with reference to two beas of knowledge.For centuries scientists and historians alike confound debated topics within their field of view of study. Whether it be the structure of an atom or the ca rehearse of the fall of the papistical Empire, experts in these field often disagree patronage having access to the aforesaid(prenominal) exact facts and information. These shed light on go throughations of entropy leads to the question of how it is possible that the same facts do not al dashs point to the same general truths. Although experts in the fields of science and account statement have access to the same facts, the experts who analyze and interpret these facts atomic number 18 human beings, whose thoughts argon refered by the diametrical husbandrys, experien ces, and perspectives in which they were raised.One important question that needs to be raised is what makes person an expert? Better yet, what is a fact? An expert is someone who has an colossal background in a authorized subject and is recognized by others as having a comprehensive understanding of a specific topic. This delegacy that they have a great understanding of the subject matter of which they are an expert, and others abide at attempt to this proficiency. Facts are known truths that are commonly accept and verifiable. A fact must(prenominal) be verifiable in parliamentary procedure to be legitimate. Understanding these terms allows us to truly understand the face-to-faceity of historians and scientists and their interpretations of information.One of the most important, yet most debatable, tasks that a historian must complete is deliberateness inference after reviewing historical facts. Historians make decisions ground on more unlike slices of present. They decide how important each piece of evidence is to the way that bill played out. This brings up the question of the close to which the weighing of evidence by historians in relation back to events in memorial is subjective or objective. The weighing of evidence tends to be subjective barely because of the often multiple different causes of certain events in history.This basin be seen in the analysis of almost every historical event in recorded history, but especially in the analysis of the cause of populace state of war II. Many different factors played into the cause of orbit War II. Between the economic sanctions imposed by countries such as the unite States and Great Britain, political tension between the major powers, or expansionist contradictory policies of Italy, Germany, and Japan, no single cause shag be seen as the only one to start to war (History.com staff). However, deciding which cause had the great impact on war is what historians debate over and weigh ev idence over, yet they often come to separate conclusions.The different cultures, experiences, and perspectives of the historians leads to their different interpretations and evaluations of evidence in history. Although these experts analyze the same entropy, the lenses through which they view the evidence are different. Historians do their best to analyze facts and their impact on history with follow objectivity, yet the temper of the weighing of evidence is very subjective. Historians have to use their own ain values and emotions, establish on their own personal culture and experiences, in nightspot to evaluate evidence and make decisions found on these evaluations.This also brings up the question of the extent to which the upbringings of a historian has an impact on their analysis of historical facts. All historians grow up in unique situations and so their view on the world and the way humans interact with each other is slightly different. Furthermore, their opinions on the interactions of foreign powers can often be impacted by their nationalities and the education they received. This personal opinion is most prominently seen with debate over differing political ideologies and their impact on foreign nations.I saw this debate first distribute in my history class. The topic of the discussion was Cuba and the rise of Castro as a communist dictator. As the child of a Cuban exile, I have heard anecdotes from people who lived and suffered under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. My family has seen the thousands of people who were killed under his postulate and the conditions of the Cuban people because of his policies. Undoubtedly, because of my personal upbringings, I am biased against Castro and collectivism in general. This extremely negative experience with communism has swayed my opinion close the political ideology to a great extent. However, in class, my history teacher argued that Fidel Castro had a great, positive impact on Cuba and the Cuban people. My teacher claimed that Castro trim back the unemployment rate and generally improved the average living conditions of the Cuban people. exclusively like historians, both my teacher and I were analyzing the same facts around the same country, yet were drawing drastically different conclusions. We were weighing evidence establish on our own personal cultures and beliefs and drawing conclusions about the general disposition of the regime. This personal example gives insight to the debates that historians go through in order to come to conclusions about events or topics in history. Historians attempt to decipher selective information in an objective way, yet the weighing of evidence is subjective and substantially influenced by the culture of the historian. In this way, historians rarely come to the same conclusions based on the same facts simply because each individual historian is weighing evidence based on their own unique personal experiences. These experiences and aspe cts of their culture give each historian a predisposed idea about topics in history that causes them to evaluate events in history in different ways.In the field of science, the different types of data often leads to disagreement and separate conclusions based on this data. In science, the two main types of data are quantitative and qualitative quantitative data being data that can be measured in numbers while qualitative data being data that can be observed and described. Quantitative data tends to not only be more precise, but also easier to reproduce. On the other hand, qualitative data is measured based on the scientists interpretations of a certain quality within an essay. For example, when performing titrations, scientists often use excuse indicators to show when the titration is complete. However, they must decide for their own when the color has changed sufficiently for the titration to be con slopered complete. This leads to a large amount of room for error. This same exp eriment can be performed around the world several times by experts in the field of science yet they may all come to different conclusions about the data.This imprecision of this data leads to the question of the extent to which the preconceived ideas of scientists affects the way they interpret data. Often times in science, data is either backbreaking to describe, as in the exact color of a solution when a titration is complete, or in instances where an experiment cannot be trained in order to test a theory. For example, String Theory was proposed by scientists years ago and many scientists continue to support it today. In the words of Richard Dawid, On one side of the divide stand most of those physicists who work on string physics and in fields like inflationary cosmology or amply energy particle physics model building, which are strongly influenced by string physics. Yet, many other experts disagree and refuse to support the theory. They, count string theory a vastly overrate d speculation, and without being able to canalise an experiment to prove the theory, it is not valid. They refuse to consider the evidence proposed by scientists who support the theory simply based on this single idea.The nature of a scientists research can help explain why many scientists can come to different conclusions when analyzing the same data. When a scientist sets out to conduct an experiment, they often have a goal in mind. Whether they are severe to prove a theory correct or make a new discovery, scientists often have preconceived ideas about the topic of which their experiment is concerned. In other cases, scientists are being supported financially by investors who are looking for the scientists to come to certain conclusions, especially in relation to medicines where investors are looking to create a new drug in order to make a profit. Because of this, scientists often have biases when conducting experiments. This leads to them analyzing data in a way that will suppo rt their goals. They will often heedlessness or assign insignificant value data that contradicts the claim they are trying to support. This is generally the source of disagreement between scientists when analyzing the same data. each day, historians and scientists alike are analyzing undisputable facts. They look at these facts and come to whole separate conclusions. As human beings, we all are subject to interpreting facts through the subjective lenses of our cultures and personal experiences. Although experts in both the fields of history and science may try to be objective as possible, certain elements of research in these fields require subjective analysis that can vary from expert to expert. This gives way to differing conclusions among experts in the fields of science and history and, in general, disagreements between experts in a certain field despite having access to the same facts.Works CitedDawid, Richard. String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge Cambridge U, 2015. Print.History.com Staff. World War II History. History.com. AE Television Networks, 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. .