Why do academics draw different conclusions about the same issue?

Question

I have read many research papers / books by academics, who provide different interpretations / conclusions about one particular issue.

Normally, academics, who work at university, are respected for their supposed objectivity and accuracy. So why are there so many different conclusions? There must be one who's right, and another's wrong? And if two academics give two different conclusions, how can both of them retain their job? It makes one feel there is no standard to judge their works.

Answer 1

well theories can never be truly disproved and therefor other tutors come up with other ways of explaining phenomena to explain or counter act the views of past academics.

After all look at religion it can't be proved by science and yet their are many different faiths.

Answer 2

It depends on the discipline. In subjective things like art and literature, I think the two academics are approaching the subject with different backgrounds and beliefs, so there cannot be a "right" answer, only an interpretation.

In science, however, there is rarely a "eureka!" right answer moment, because there are so many variables that have to be accounted for. To highly respected physicists can have opposing points of view on the same problem because they have some evidence that points them towards that conclusion, but the rest of the necessary data just isn't available.

Answer 3

A lot of academics will only look at the issues in one direction i.e the textbook and their findings. Take the Blue Peter appeal when they raised money for tractors and bought cattle that were large and hence were plentiful in beef and milk. In theory sounds really good, but in reality there was no diesel to run the tractors, or the expertise to maintain, or the money to buy new parts! (Now there are lots of tractors rusting!) The cattle when fed are fat and provide large quantities of milk and beef. When there is little food, they are thin and produce very little milk. Speak to anyone in Africa and they will tell you. Sri Lanka is the same -the coral is been dug up and sold abroad for hard currency (splendid idea - they thought) -coral means wildlife which means fish -fish is food! No coral no food!!!!! Different conclusions depending on where you sit!

Answer 4

If want clever people to respond to, you have come to the incorrect place toddler. yet, right here's a shot at an answer. Historians handle genuine international activities that are quite complicated, the two in the interaction of reasons for any journey and in the quantity a given journey inspired what got here after it. This turns into magnified while the historian deals with very historical activities the place quite some the small print are lacking. It is likewise a project while the historic previous covers a huge volume of cloth, as an occasion all historic previous you get at college under the positioned up-graduate point. So, each and each historian will look at diverse impacts on each and each journey and attempt to weigh which of them are maximum serious. it is largely a judgment call, depending on each and each persons opinion of what mattered maximum between the myriad info of any given journey.

Answer 5

Because the world wasn't designed like a text book with the 'right' answers at the back. Reality is so complex that there are parts we will never understand.

We learn a lot of our simple 'yes/no' facts at school because they are simple enough for us to understand at that level. As you go further, things get more complex - did you know that at a sub-atomic level, even time can work differently, allowing things to be in two places at once? Of course, to us, that is 'impossible'- but it goes to show that things that seem obvious might not be so when viewed by an expert.

Answer 6

It depends on what area of study you're referring to. I work in English at postgraduate level - I hope to gain my PhD next year - and you're right, there are so many different opinions on some of the topics in my subject that you would wonder, at times, who is right and who is wrong, but in English studies, there is no black and white 'right' and 'wrong'. In relation to science, or another subject where it's possible to say something is definably correct or not, it's different, and people's opinions change as knowledge grows. If there were total agreement among academics on a subject, then research and interest in that subject would die. Disagreement among academics stimulates discussion, debate and argument and keeps knowledge fresh and cutting-edge. I hope I've helped with your question!

Answer 7

Some things have no set answer, and people can argue the evidence for their side. Other things will yield their set answer only over time, with people arguing the best evidence for their side. It is, in fact, the mark of an academic, that you are open to evidence that doesn't support your own conclusion. Otherwise, you've got a religion.

Answer 8

because different people interpret the same situation in different ways which is what makes us unique. being an academic means that you have the ability to see other view points other than your own and that you can prove your opinion/findings factually.

Answer 9

Interpreting evidence of any sort is a subjective thing and requires judgement and application of past knowledge, that is why different academics interpret things differently because they are applying different knowledge and past experience to their judgements.

Answer 10

Because the fantasy world of Academia imagines that intellectual speculation (if it follows academic rules) is a real but separate universe from actual experience.