3

I am considering the area of knowledge of History but it has so many disciplines that I don't really understand fully.

As for answering the question, I already thought of one factor: the lack of data making disputes unresolvable in the discipline of Physics within the area of knowledge of Natural Sciences. However, I can't really think of a substantial argument for any other factors (eg. identity of people experiencing the dispute or context of dispute). Could someone provide other factors that would help me to jumpstart my argument?

Thanks!

  • This may be overkill, but if you are studying for a degree in history, you may find this interesting: "The Meaning of History" by Henri Marrou, Helicon Press (1966). He covers more than just meaning. The book is a bit ponderous, but it is possible to tease something good out of it. – Gordon Apr 13 '18 at 2:37
4

1) Lack of data

2) Intrinsic bias/world view/Weltanschauung

3) Disagreement of the interpretation of data

4) Disagreement over the experimental methods by which that data were collected

5) Disagreement over what data to use (often different sets of data will support different conclusions)

6) Disagreement over the analysis used

Just to name a few.

  • 1
    This is ridiculously useful! Thanks! – gerald ek Apr 13 '18 at 0:28
2

A dispute generally centers around a “differend” — a point of contention owing to incompatible viewpoints or perspectives.

Consider a legal trial where a defendant is accused of wrong-doing. What grounds the difference in perspective, the parallax between the social position of Victim and Perpetrator? The idea of the “wrong” provides an opportunity for two different cases or points to be articulated, which both map onto the “conditional” question of whether there was a wrong at all. (If the victim wasn’t wronged, they have no standing to sue; and indeed the alleged perpetrator would be “wronged” by the false charge!)

The two perspectives on the wrong — a different wrong from each point of view — are like two incompossible worlds; their universes can’t coincide. The trial forms a truth procedure deciding on the universe of “reference”, identifying which “side” of the differend is upheld (which wrongs, if any, are to be “righted” by the court.)

  • 1
    Critical philosophy offers a “transcendental” procedure, modeled on the trial, to identify and resolve metaphysical “differends” (cf. Kant and the first Critique) – Joseph Weissman Apr 12 '18 at 16:02
2

Even natural sciences are created by human communities, and those communities easily develop habits (without noticing it) which can negatively impact the resolvability of disputes, like

  • Rejection to accept the importance of language
  • Rejection to accept the relevance of historical development
  • Rejection to accept the helpfulness of scholastic standards

Another obvious factor that might not always be stated explicit (to avoid accusations):

  • Rejection to accept the political implications of a question and how individuals (and institutions) benefit from different (possibly wrong) answers

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.