As makes my opinion much more substantial. Therefore, I

As the first area of knowledge, in the Human Sciences ?(Human Geography), for example,
someone I know has told me a while back that climate change is man-made. Was I to simply
say “yes, you’ve made a statement clear enough for me to agree that climate change is man
made” or was I to say “You’ve made worthy statement, but before I make my decision, I need to
hear the other side of the argument”? Personally I think I´d do the latter. My existing view of the
world would be the idea that climate change is man-made, however, there is always some
confirmation bias. The counterclaim here would state the fact that just because it would fit with
my existing beliefs doesn’t necessarily make it true. So instead, I suspend my existing beliefs
and listen to the other side of the argument. After having listened to both sides and weighed
them equally, I then proceeded to my decision. This is the way debating Societies have worked
for centuries: one (or two) person(s) puts a case, and another one (or two) puts the counter
argument. People in the room listen to both sides evenly – suspending their existing beliefs – and
then vote on which side put the best case. I disbelieve the argument that climate change is not
man-made. I therefore suspended that disbelief and listened to both sides. The difference is that
now I also know that I disagree with the other side of the argument and that makes my opinion
much more substantial. Therefore, I tend to feel more satisfied with it. Had I weighed the two
arguments together and altered my mind, then I would never have done that without suspending
my disbelief of their argument. Had I heard both sides and been unable to decide then I would
have known that I needed to do more research. In conclusion; suspension of disbelief is not an
essential feature in this real life example as I suspend that disbelief and listen to both sides.
As the second area of knowledge, in the Natural Sciences? for instance, in contrast I looked
at AoK Mathematics as the opposite process. Mathematics requires actual proof before it
becomes known, or categorised as knowledge. Hence, rather than a suspension of disbelief, it
could be argued that disbelief is completely inherent to the methodology of knowledge
construction. For instance, it took Russell & Whitehead 300 pages to prove that 1+1=2, the
problem of Goldbach’s Conjecture and the process by which Andrew Wiley proved Fermat’s last
theorem (notably, there were many steps on the way to final proof that mathematicians ‘knew’
without being able to prove, such as the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture).