Q.

Are disputes over knowledge claims within a discipline

always resolvable?

Since the dawn of mankind, disputes have risen within

communities but the most controversial yet Important
ones have been on Knowledge claims. This was because
generally, knowledge claims defined a society’s culture
and was often the basis for many scientific revolutions.
Knowledge claims are often very controversial mainly
because they question the very beliefs of a society and
their answers can radically change how a society
function. For example, The knowledge question of
whether God exists can be the bases of making a
completely different civilization.

Knowledge claims have been quite controversial in the

fields of mathematics and natural sciences, with some
theories, based on knowledge claims, going on debate
for decades until one can be officially recognised. Since I
will be talking about Science and technology, I will
consider claims as resolvable as when the majority of the
scientific society considers the relevant theory plausible
enough with substantial quantitative or even qualitative
data in some scenarios. Some of the most controversial
knowledge claims in these fields have been regarding the
existence of intuition and its importance in these fields.
Although many famous scientists in these fields have
reportedly said that Intuition exists and it has a large
impact in Natural sciences and Mathematics. Einstein is
widely quoted as saying, "The intuitive mind is a sacred
gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant." , Similarly,
some like Rita Levi-Montalcini believe that without its
existence is crucial to science itself. "I don't believe there
would be any science at all without intuition.". The
interesting thing about this debate is that Intuition is not
something tangible, its more of a gut feeling and there is
no quantitative evidence to support its existence, yet we
find many scientists giving it credit for their inventions
and discoveries. Many consider it almost as if it's
supernatural or even an unexplainable phenomenon
such as the placebo effect.

In the fields of science, many theories are presented,

some are kept, only to be replaced soon by another,
more accurate theory but does that mean the previous
one was inaccurate or even false? From an objective and
logical point of view, it all depends on what we consider
reality or the truth. Almost anything can be argued upon
with considerable evidence but with enough counter-
evidence, one side of the statement can be considered
true. Yet, at the very same problem or question, both can
be said to be true or even the problem can be said
unexplainable or unsolvable. One such phenomenon is
the behaviour of light which at first could not be
explained by the basic laws of physics but eventually,
with more understanding, science came to agree that it
exists in different states, giving birth to the theory of dual
nature of light.

Reflecting from this, I reckon that even though, virtually

any knowledge claim can be considered to be resolved,
with sufficient data or evidence, It all boils down to the
perspective, each discipline may have its criteria of
defining a problem or argument as resolvable. In a
nutshell, disputes over knowledge claims can be resolved
to a certain extent, however, they may still be unresolved
from a different perspective or be said unresolved
whenever a more accurate counter-argument is
presented to the original resolving answer.