“Are disputes over knowledge claims within a

discipline always resolvable?" Answer this question

by comparing and contrasting disciplines taken from
two AOKs.
There are different types of knowledge claims, those made within a particular AOK or by
individuals who know about the world, known as first order claims, and those which are
based on knowledge which require us to examine the nature of knowledge by applying
the tools of TOK.
Since I will be using Natural Sciences and History as the two AOKs the term resolvable
will mean that the majority of the experts of that particular field agree on one consensus.

In natural sciences, it depends. If you consider the empirical nature of science, then
factual claims can be easily resolved through observation. However, if we consider the
underlying foundations of science, then every theory or law is in fact part of a specific
philoso[hy. Different scientists may view the world through different lenses (ex.
Quantum physics vs traditional physics) and there is no way to say that one is
absolutely true over another, as they are based on different assumptions on nature. We
average human beings don’t have to think about the quantum physics vs traditional
physics debate and so for us natural sciences are more to do with the empirical nature.
That part of science is always factual and believable since it can be observed.

Historical knowledge can also be divided into three branches: what is said, what is
written and what is preserved. Factual knowledge is less subject to disagreement given
the abundance of primary and secondary sources. Although in some cases, the lack of
sources may lead to disagreement because we don't know if some events really
happened or not. That is due to the lack of evidence and not perspective itself. On the
other hand the nature of history itself is bound to subjectivity, because true historical
knowledge is not simply factual but it is also about giving colour to the events that
happened. Different historians may have different views on the same events. Here the
majority of people believe what is being told to them by a higher power. Could be the
government or the society itself but there is always an aspect of subjectivity where
personal influences might help you pick a side more relatable.

In conclusion I strongly believe that disagreements aren’t always a bad thing. This is
how more knowledge is produced. If we didn't have disagreement in science, how would
we progress in making laws even more accurate. There are countless examples of how
disagreement led to more experimentation and soon a new idea was evolved which
delved deeper into a knowledge claim making it easier to understand more fundamental
questions while also opening us new pathways to discover.
Similarly If there was never any form of disagreement in history then we would never
learn about the past. There would be no incentive to learn more to prove your point; this
is why historians change their views when they discover new evidence.They also
select information and when they write they can distort information to make their
arguments stronger.