The key terms that should be identified from the prescribed title are ‘facts’ and ‘experts’. The key term fact can be defined as something that is known or proved to true meaning. Facts are verified through a mutual agreement of experts. Facts are used as guidelines for non-experts. They support our argument, ideas and opinions on specific matters. Although a fact may be regarded as a fact, there is no way to tell whether a fact is right or wrong. Thus, I ask the question “How can facts be verified of being true?”.
The first Area of Knowledge which I will be looking at is Natural Sciences. In Natural Sciences a fact is a careful and repeatable observation, often called empirical evidence. Facts in Natural Sciences are often regarded as being true as they are thought to have been proven by scientists. Facts are the building blocks to scientific theories, which many then interpret as being the same as facts. Despite knowing that a theory is claimed to be proven by scientists, there have been several instances in the past where theories have been disproven by other scientists. Various forms of measurement and observations lead to fundamental questions and the scope and validity behind the scientific reasoning. Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer, no matter who performs the scientific experiment, observers present agree on the outcome. As such, there may be a disagreement between the experts present during the experiment and the experts that were not present during the experiment. The disagreement between experts does not lie with the conclusion but rather the method reaching the conclusion. My first example is from the Area of Knowledge of Natural Science, which is followed by the question of "How does method used to interpret data affect the end-result?" An example of scientists reaching different conclusions from the same facts is the case of Vulcan. Vulcan is a hypothetical planet that was proposed to orbit between the Sun and Mercury. Attempting to explain the peculiarities of Mercury’s orbit, French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier hypothesized that they were the result of another planet, which he named “Vulcan”. This assumption although it begins with reason was basically based on intuition. Le Verrier had devoted his entire life in search for evidence to prove the existence of the hypothesized planet, which he still believed to be true up to the point of his death. Thus, we can suggest that up until his death, Le Verrier very much relied on his emotions to prove a theory which was unfortunately disproven later in the future. In 1859, Frenchman Edmond Lescarbault spotted a black dot on the surface of the sun. He wrote to Le Verrier about it, thinking it might be planet Vulcan and dropped anything and hastened to the Frenchman’s location. During his time with the Frenchman, Le Verrier was convinced that he had finally found the hypothesized planet. Thereafter, reports of the hypothesized planet came flooding in, same based on observations made many years earlier. Despite the flood of reports, it was still not definite that Vulcan actually exists. From this, we can then suggest that Le Verrier had relied mostly on his emotions to prove the existence of Vulcan. Then, in 1915 Albert Einstein disproved the existence of the hypothesized planet. He had used the Theory of Relativity which was completely took over by Newton’s to explain planetary motion. When the theory was applied …show more content…
For example, I make a comparison between two football players, player A and player B. Between the 2 players I idolize only of them, player A. At the same time only one of the player is better than the other, which in this case is player B. Despite being biased towards player A, my personal knowledge says that I believe that player A is better player between the 2, as my emotions have appealed towards player A. However, looking at shared knowledge, in this case statistics, statistics would tell me that player B is the better player between the 2 as player B is statistically better than player A. Thus, proving me wrong that the player which I idolize, player A, is in fact worse than player B. In conclusion for this counterclaim, to an extent emotions can be a means for an individual to reach a conclusion, however, at the same time it isn’t reliable as emotions tend to ignore the facts which disprove the beliefs which an individual
The first Area of Knowledge which I will be looking at is Natural Sciences. In Natural Sciences a fact is a careful and repeatable observation, often called empirical evidence. Facts in Natural Sciences are often regarded as being true as they are thought to have been proven by scientists. Facts are the building blocks to scientific theories, which many then interpret as being the same as facts. Despite knowing that a theory is claimed to be proven by scientists, there have been several instances in the past where theories have been disproven by other scientists. Various forms of measurement and observations lead to fundamental questions and the scope and validity behind the scientific reasoning. Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer, no matter who performs the scientific experiment, observers present agree on the outcome. As such, there may be a disagreement between the experts present during the experiment and the experts that were not present during the experiment. The disagreement between experts does not lie with the conclusion but rather the method reaching the conclusion. My first example is from the Area of Knowledge of Natural Science, which is followed by the question of "How does method used to interpret data affect the end-result?" An example of scientists reaching different conclusions from the same facts is the case of Vulcan. Vulcan is a hypothetical planet that was proposed to orbit between the Sun and Mercury. Attempting to explain the peculiarities of Mercury’s orbit, French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier hypothesized that they were the result of another planet, which he named “Vulcan”. This assumption although it begins with reason was basically based on intuition. Le Verrier had devoted his entire life in search for evidence to prove the existence of the hypothesized planet, which he still believed to be true up to the point of his death. Thus, we can suggest that up until his death, Le Verrier very much relied on his emotions to prove a theory which was unfortunately disproven later in the future. In 1859, Frenchman Edmond Lescarbault spotted a black dot on the surface of the sun. He wrote to Le Verrier about it, thinking it might be planet Vulcan and dropped anything and hastened to the Frenchman’s location. During his time with the Frenchman, Le Verrier was convinced that he had finally found the hypothesized planet. Thereafter, reports of the hypothesized planet came flooding in, same based on observations made many years earlier. Despite the flood of reports, it was still not definite that Vulcan actually exists. From this, we can then suggest that Le Verrier had relied mostly on his emotions to prove the existence of Vulcan. Then, in 1915 Albert Einstein disproved the existence of the hypothesized planet. He had used the Theory of Relativity which was completely took over by Newton’s to explain planetary motion. When the theory was applied …show more content…
For example, I make a comparison between two football players, player A and player B. Between the 2 players I idolize only of them, player A. At the same time only one of the player is better than the other, which in this case is player B. Despite being biased towards player A, my personal knowledge says that I believe that player A is better player between the 2, as my emotions have appealed towards player A. However, looking at shared knowledge, in this case statistics, statistics would tell me that player B is the better player between the 2 as player B is statistically better than player A. Thus, proving me wrong that the player which I idolize, player A, is in fact worse than player B. In conclusion for this counterclaim, to an extent emotions can be a means for an individual to reach a conclusion, however, at the same time it isn’t reliable as emotions tend to ignore the facts which disprove the beliefs which an individual