To interpret the title, we must first understand the term "robust knowledge", defining knowledge as justified true belief, suggesting that knowledge itself is already of absolute quality. This makes the task problematic and I have therefore interpreted robust knowledge as a notion in which knowledge can be justified to some extent based on the presence of consensus and disagreement, which makes it justified in a greater extent and therefore “robust knowledge”. This essay will therefore deconstruct the acquisition of knowledge in the two areas of knowledge: mathematics and history based on the application or not of consensus and disagreement. I hypothesized that there can only be consensus and disagreement in shared knowledge, not in personal knowledge. This thought process led to this knowledge question: "How much better can certain areas of knowledge be at providing more justified true belief?" I will argue that mathematics and history can both play an important role in acquiring knowledge, but mathematics remains the grounded one. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Knowledge gained through mathematics can be seen as dependent on both consensus and disagreement from a formalist perspective, as this implies that the knowledge gained is analytical. Formalism is an analytical mathematical proposition that makes it true by definition and is knowable (or known to be true) a priori (no experience necessary for justification). Formalists believe that mathematics is nothing more than rules for replacing one system of meaningless symbols with another. By writing down some axioms and deriving a theorem, we have then correctly applied our replacement rules to the entity strings that represent the axioms and obtain a symbol string that represents the theorem. This means that a certain statement can be obtained from other statements through certain manipulation processes, not that some existing mathematical goals exist of which we were previously unaware or that the theorem is "true". This theory therefore holds that mathematics is solely a projection of the mind, creating mathematical entities such as number and sets only existing and meaningful forms when we humans give them an interpretation. To then gain more knowledge in mathematics, we must combine our collective interpretations to, for example, peer-review a possible contribution which is then (if proven reliable) added to a collective pool of information, thereby makes a shared acquaintance. An example of As we have established that mathematics is shared knowledge (from a formalist perspective) and that peers work collaboratively to eliminate errors, this suggests that consensus and disagreement are relevant to knowledge acquisition. However, according to the Platonists, the knowledge acquired in mathematics does not depend on consensus and disagreement because it is a synthetic proposition (non-analytic) and like formalism, a priori (can be justified independently of experience) . However, Platonism is more or less the antithesis of formalism. According to Gödel, Platonism is the view that mathematics exists in a non-sensual reality independent of both acts and..