The late, great psychiatrist Carl Jung once said, “Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth.” (Jung, 1969) While at first glance his words might seem like they are unconnected to the prescribed title, both of these statements actually share similar sentiments. Disagreements and errors are a way to test the validity of a statement and are what knowledge or ‘the truth’ is built upon. Knowledge should also have those who argue for and against it so that both the strengths and weaknesses can be explored and tested. Looking into these claims, we can procure several questions such as: at what point can we start to consider something a consensus? When can we consider knowledge to be robust? To what extent does consensus or disagreement play a part in the validity of a statement? Another thing to consider is that although knowledge and truth generally do have the same meaning as being aware of the truth is considered to be knowledge, they are not exactly one and the same. This raises the question, “What is knowledge?” While knowledge can refer to the awareness of an individual, in the case of the prescribed title it is referring to the ‘standard definition’ of knowledge. As with a majority of the topics discussed in the field of philosophy the definition of knowledge, an abstract concept, is controversial and disagreed upon by many philosophers. But coming up with a definition, even if it ends up being temporary, allows us to use it as a starting point for deciphering and studying knowledge. Going by the standard definition, an individual can only say that they know something to be true if it has fulfilled these three requirements: the individual believes that the statement is true, the statement is indeed true, and the individual is justified in believing that the statement is true. (Philosophy News, 2011) Belief, truth, and justification. Firstly, a belief is something that people have, it is how an individual perceives the world around them and could either be factually wrong or right. Take this statement, for example, The Brooklyn Nets have never won an NBA championship. If you believe that the Nets have never won a championship, you just think that they have never won. Whether they have is up for debate. Truth, however, is something that is a fact, a statement that has real-world evidence that it is what it claims to be. The previous statement regarding The Brooklyn Nets is only true if they have never won a championship. Lastly, justification is needed to support and explain why a belief is true. An individual is not justified in their belief if it is a product of wishful thinking, guilt, guesswork, or dumb luck. As I have previously mentioned, this definition of knowledge is not the be-all end-all but rather a point we can start on and expand upon. This definition itself is an example of a product of the claim in the prescribed title. It was developed through disagreements and was eventually a widely accepted consensus. But what constitutes a consensus? By definition, a consensus is a unanimous agreement. But oftentimes, in reality, a completely unanimous concurrence is hardly ever achieved, there will always be those who do not agree with the decision, word for word. However, this doesn’t mean that a consensus hasn’t been reached, as long as each member of the group agrees with the spirit of the decision and move forward with it a consensus has been achieved. (One Community, 2010) When it comes to the field of history, it is common for historians to disagree and argue with one other before they reach an agreement. History is unique in that evidence can exist in a variety of forms such as documents, artefacts, and oral traditions. (National Council on Public History, 2018) However, due to the different ways an individual can interpret evidence and some historical events being retold by unreliable narrators, disagreements will always crop up.