I'd be wary about areas in which this is not the case. There are such areas, particularly in the humanities, but these are the ones with major methodological problems.
I'd be wary about areas in which this is not the case. There are such areas, particularly in the humanities, but these are the ones with major methodological problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own (his stuff on epistemology not the rest)
On a side note, what you're doing is appeal to authority. Not every successful author in philosophy is really an authority, philosophy doesn't work that way.
Mostly, yet this view also has significant problems. The biggest issue is that as complexly increases, ability to completely traverse the problem space decreases. Combinatorial explosions commonly happen. The more variables you add to the equation, the larger effect local variables will have on the answer people arrive at.
Talking to first one is interesting, second one not so much. The second website is most likely much better then first though
But thinking that we currently understand it in its totality is complete arrogance. (I even doubt we can achieve it)
An subjectivity shows us that that understanding is way harder than it seems.