To interpret the title we must first understand the term “solid knowledge,” defining knowledge as justified true belief, suggesting that knowledge itself is already of absolute quality. This makes the task problematic and therefore I interpreted robust knowledge as a notion where knowledge can be justified to some extent depending on the presence of consensus and disagreement, making it justified to a greater extent and therefore “robust knowledge”. This essay will therefore deconstruct the acquisition of knowledge within the two areas of knowledge: Mathematics and History in terms of whether or not consensus and disagreement apply. I assumed that there can be consensus and disagreement only in shared knowledge and not in personal knowledge. This thought process led to this knowledge question: “To what extent might some areas of knowledge be better at providing a more justified true belief?” I will argue that mathematics and history can both play a thoughtful role in the acquisition of knowledge, however mathematics is still the based one. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Knowledge gained through mathematics can be considered dependent on both consensus and disagreement through a formalist point of view, as it 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 some axioms and deducing a theorem from them, we have then correctly applied our substitution rules to the strings of entities representing the axioms and obtain a string of symbols representing the theorem. This means that a certain statement can be obtained from other statements through certain manipulation processes, and not that there are some mathematical goals that we were previously unaware of or that the theorem is “true”. This theory therefore argues that Mathematics is exclusively a projection of the mind, which creates mathematical entities such as number and exclusively sets existing and meaningful forms when we humans give them an interpretation. Therefore, to acquire greater knowledge in mathematics we must combine our collective interpretations, for example, to peer review a possible contribution which is then (if deemed reliable) added to a collective pool of information, making it shared knowledge. An example of how we have established mathematics as shared knowledge (through a formalist perspective) and how peers work collaboratively to eliminate errors suggests that consensus and disagreement are relevant to the acquisition of knowledge. However, according to Platonists, the knowledge acquired in mathematics does not depend on consensus and disagreement as it is a synthetic (not analytical) proposition 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 independently of both the acts and dispositions of the human mind and is only observed, perceived, or discovered by the human mind. Since formalists view mathematics as abstract, derived solely from the human mind, a Platonist would instead view mathematical statements such as “1+1=2” as similar..