“robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.” discuss this claim with reference to the area of knowledge of history.

Robust knowledge is knowledge that has stood the test of time and survived constant criticism. When a piece of knowledge is examined for its truthfulness, critics make a consensus over whether it's correct or not. The knowledge becomes robust if a consensus is reached on its truthfulness and if it survives criticism from different sides and angles. This is difficult to apply to history because those who make history usually have a different perception of what happened. What was an assassination in the mind of one country, is a move of fighting for freedom in another country. That's why a consensus needs to be made on a global scale regarding historical developments and it is done through the academia where people write papers and critics from all over the world critique them to eventually reach an idea of truthful global history.