In any situation progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In dev

It is imperative, in today’s world, to develop an ‘all-round’ approach to any kind of social or national issue. Such an approach necessitates that people reach a consensus amongst themselves even if they are of varied opinion. The prompt presents us with the controversial issue as to whether discussions reach the most progressive common ground when the group is homogeneous or whether it does so, when people with ‘contrasting’ viewpoints sit together. In my opinion, I mostly agree that progress is significantly more when people with different opinions, reach consensus on a particular issue, through debate and discourse, as it encourages them to consider others’ perspectives and invokes insightful knowledge which one have not thought of earlier.
The fact that peer review often helps to judge the efficacy of a particular hypothesis, theory or concept is adequately present in history. Looking back at the scientific discoveries that have led to immense technological advancements, one can easily say that an informed discussion on scientific arguments between people of opposing views lead to discovering of pertinent fallacies of previous theories. For example, the evolution of quantum mechanics, as it started from Young’s double slit experiment had led to the discovery of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it has served to show Newtonian mechanics, which was earlier deemed to be the conclusive law governing movement of physical bodies, has incomplete. It had also led to establishment of wave-particle duality of light, which was earlier believed to be only of particulate nature. Thus, it can be seen that people with opposing viewpoints, based on their observations often lead to newer discoveries in the field of scientific research. As such, such peer-review is encouraged even today when important discoveries are reported.
Even in forming policies that dictate the operation of nations, governments present their viewpoints of social importance which are then contradicted by opposition politicians and through debate and discourse, the viability and their detrimental effects on society is highlighted. Finally, through a vote of majority amidst the concerned members of the House, a decision is taken based on whether the proposed policy serves best to the interest of the nation or does it prove to be deleterious. Had it been that the government’s policies are always unanimously supported by all members of the House, people would not be aware of the drawbacks that such policies entail. As opposed to dictatorship, democracies are often praised because of their structure which caters to opposing viewpoints, since it allows each individual to present their own opinion rather than admitting to a set of rules set by an absolute authority.
Indisputably, it is important that people involved in the discussion of a particular issue are well informed and knowledgeable to the extent that they understand the severity of the issue and its context. For example, an historian and a scientist can not possibly argue on whether the atomic model ubiquitous today is correct or not. Under such circumstances, the view of the scientist will be upheld considering that the historian is not well adept to scientific developments over the years and how each theory presented has stood the test of time and has been well corroborated by other scientists. However, in a matter related to agriculture, a debate between them as to whether rapid industrialization of agricultural processes eventually serves to be beneficial will serve to show how historically industrialization has been fruitful, from the historian’s perspectives and how newer technology will uplift the conditions of farmers, from the scientist’s perspectives. Eventually, both of their viewpoints will enable people take an informed decision on whether industrialization of agricultural methods will be helpful or not.
In conclusion, progress is always achieved when people with differing viewpoints debate over an overarching issue. This helps in highlighting the pros and cons of each course of action, enabling thought provoking scenarios which might not have crossed people’s minds. However, to ensure the effectiveness of such debate and discourse, it is important that the opposing viewpoints are from people who are well informed about the issue being questioned. Hence, I mostly agree with the prompt, insofar as the people undertaking to discuss any controversial issue are well acquainted with its overarching parameters.