When setting conflicting viewpoints, you should identify two things.
The first thing, the basic disagreement which is taking place and the second thing you should identify the basic question they’re seeking to answer.
Next Lesson: Identifying Variables
The transcript is for your convenience.
In order to assess the rival claims made by some scientists, you must understand the specific points on which they differ.
Now in order to understand the specific points on which they differ, you must understand the basic questions, they’re seeking to answer.
Now, it may be that the rival claims made by the scientist are non-fact conflicting, but are simply two different approaches to solving the same problem.
That’s why it’s important that you investigate the conflict here, by understanding the basic disagreement, but also understanding the basic question each scientist is seeking to answer and by that understanding the specific points on which they differ.
The basis of agreement in science can be referred to as the scientific consensus. It establishes certain principles and bodies of evidence as having a special status. Most scientists accept the consensus.
Science makes progress precisely because there is disagreement. Without internal disagreement, a science is cold and dead. Scientists improve their ideas by the criticism of their peers, and the science advances through that process.
Science establishes no idea on an absolute basis – science is not a religion, after all. There are no sacred truths, no meaningful arguments by authority, no ultimate arbiter. Its most respected ideas are promoted from their original status as a hypothesis to theory to law, but even laws can be superseded.
Newton’s Law of Gravity was supplanted by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, for example.