Theoryof Knowledge Essay:We know with confidence only when we know little

Theory of Knowledge Essay: We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases” (adapted from JW von Goethe)
Presented by (Name)
Name of the course
Professor
Name of the school
The city and the state
Date
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE ESSAY: WE KNOW WITH CONFIDENCE ONLY WHEN WE KNOW LITTLE; WITH KNOWLEDGE DOUBT INCREASES” (ADAPTED FROM JW VON GOETHE)
Introduction
Great scholars deem knowledge as bliss in the sense that it tends to confine itself within the limits of one’s reasoning. Epistemologists, though lack the profound words to describe it have deemed it as the justifiable true believes held by people. Although many times people barely understand it, it is crucial to note its indispensable role in daily lives. Knowledge is the driving force whence our lives get in motion. Whether it is shared or personal, it comes in handy in decision making in life. This situation usually happens because the more we evaluate and analyze situations facing us, the more smart and informed solutions we get and thus arriving at the answers and the ultimate goals. The huge question of knowledge boils down to the scopes and the limits of what we regard as facts as well as the credibility of those sources. For instance, while exploring science, our knowledge is based entirely on how we view the aspects in question. Different people envisage things differently thus making diverging deductions that amount to multiple schools of thoughts. This only assures that there are different depictions and stands of knowledge like human sciences art, and history, which employ different approaches to arrive at the particular decision.

For instance, while a historical researcher might view an archaeological site from the perspective of what age period, when and why, a history teacher may view it merely from the viewpoint of what’. See this proves that people acknowledge facts differently therefore granting them diverse viewpoints. Another source of knowhow can be memory whereby individuals retrieve old memories for present use. For instance, doctors in an operating room can try to get information from an accident person by prompting him or her to remember the past encounters. Here, a recollection of memories becomes crucial. Reason is also another source of knowledge and it regards the art of deep thought. Thinking and the construction of ideas cones in handy in generating knowledge. Lastly, knowledge can come from emotional impressions. For instance, experiencing the pain of going through a tough divorce may educate a person on how to be careful the next relationship (Pure Essay Experts 1).
How one explores knowledge bases entirely on their confidence and doubt, per se, two concepts that are diametrically opposing as regards this particular topic. Confidence on hand refers to the act of being sure or trusting in one’s ability, or being trusting of one’ s approach and is prior to low reasoning as confidence limits knowledge. Doubt, on the other hand, is the state of being unsure of something and untrusting of what one sees. This usually constitutes to high levels of reasoning as the more one doubts, the more one researches and creates an empirical reasoning. A person’s capacity to reason depends on their level of doubt thus scientists should base their studies on the critical aspect of the research to succeed.
Human sciences (History)
Historical information majorly originates from the archived accounts of events form the past and is very crucial towards developing one’s understanding. While what we know today can come primarily from the events that happen real-time, happenings of the past too, are crucial in shaping the present time. Take for instance, the history of industrialization and revolution in the world that traces its roots back to the 1500s. The early archaeologists and researchers based their knowledge from the doubts that they had regarding the archaeological data excavated. This doubt increased their curiosity prompting them to carry out further research and documentation of such truths. See, doubt, also known as the increased uncertainty and lack of confidence in a situation, created information gaps that these people thought that they could explore further and further to answer. In this case, doubt and lack of trust becomes the foundation whence ‘who were the first industrialists’, where, what year, and to what extend are developed. Supposing that these researchers chose to view the information that they had at hand with surety, we would not have much of historical content. This is because they would not have engaged in such extensive researches that educate us that industrialization spring in the early 16th century and was first experienced in Japan, America, and the USSR and later spread south.
Arguably, in this case, historical information seems engrossed in the tenet of perspectivism and truth relativism. These are the underlying principles of reasoning which argue that knowledge arises because people interpret the how, why and what of happenings from different points of view. However, these are just views that vouch for particular points. In essence, therefore, truths and facts are coherent and similar because they both illuminations of what is and thus cannot be altered. While everyone has a different perspective of viewing this particular truth, he or she is unable to tamper with the existing truth that lies in the facts. See, today’s history teachers and books may look at the story of industrialization from the viewpoint different from what the previous scientists did have; they cannot alter the truth but only broaden knowledge. The minute they doubt the linkage of timelines and facts, the more they dig deep into the subject and the more knowledge they tend to discover
Counterargument
Arguably, excessive exploration of already explored work may be lethal to the historical facts. While it is hard to alter the actual historical happening, it is indeed easy to alter the appearance of that particular happening in cases of excessive questioning. Take our subject for instance, see, questioning the information that is available regarding the industrialization period and it evolution can alter it. Digging deep can lead someone into discovering idiosyncratic information that is damaging rather that constructive to the person. What if one, in quest for further clarity, discovers that indeed coal was not used in all industrial operations? What if someone realizes that indeed diamonds are overvalued going by their initial markets in the Middle East? Too much exploration may be confusing to a person thus letting them lose the credibility of the particular study. Another perspective regards the government where it’s over-involvement in new technologies and new testing of nuclear weapons in an attempt to reverse the existing nuclear power that is based in Japan could only lead it to more dangerous and unwarranted investments. These further researches may even distort the nuclear balance established back in the 17th century leading to a crisis.
Natural sciences (biology)
Natural sciences technically explore scientific instances and thus the accurate knowledge acquisition is based on the way people apply techniques in the day-to-day lives. This scientific information regards biology and creation and it originates from continual evaluation of organism behaviors as well as the scientific research on these substances. Natural science can only be backed using scientific experiments therefore, for a scientist to acquire such related knowledge, he or she has to identify an existing problem in a particular field of biology, implement a remedy, test the hypothesis, perform a modification of the research as well as perform subsequent theorizing. This again melts down to the issue of doubt as the researcher attempts to falsify an investigation by use of scientific evidence. Take, for instance, the controversial issue regarding the use of Genetically Modified Organisms. Controversy and critics argue that these products are unhealthy to some extend because they are nurtured using some highly lethal chemical substances. While that fact is yet to be debunked, it is a perfect example of the application of doubt in the field of biological studies. These critical scientists may conduct a research which indeed proves the use of such harmful compositions in the GMO’s, the level of the chemical harm as well as the remedy that exists regarding the same. In doing so, these researchers will not only have solved a deep-seated health issue, they will also have improved the significance of some of those old studies. See, establishing that some of the existing hypotheses and assumptions regarding this particular science are false attracts doubts in the minds of the people. This uncertainty in turn creates room for more research aimed at debunking these supposedly false claims. In so doing, people will be acquiring knowledge. According to Pure Essay Writers ‘Doubt is therefore central to acquisition of shared/agreed knowledge in the Natural Sciences’ (1). This is opposed to the concept of confidence where people confident with the already done research would trust in its outcomes thus lacking the need to refute it.
Counterargument
Too much doubt can also be a barrier to scientific confidence and knowledge. While one may argue that too much questioning of already done work may reduce confidence in the original researcher, the opposote is quite true and lies on the complexity of a study. See, many researchers who tend to give up on their work due to criticism are superficial and only understand the scientific facts without much of backing. Therefore, I believe that doubt, comes in handy in not only promoting that person’s work but also bringing them into perspective. For example, he could have been going wrong about the chemical products that resist weeds. Therefore, accepting other people’s criticisms and skeptical ideas could help rectify this mistake by replacing the chemicals with others which are friendly to the consumers. Addressing these issues could thus help improve the durability of the products while retaining the particular GMO invention an extremely successful one.
Another perspective of looking at this refuting argument regards the government. Too much doubt and over-participation from the government can breed more corruption this hindering the original production plan. In addition, it may not be accustomed to the issue and only stagnating the chances of further research. Therefore, I believe that for doubt to generate knowledge appropriately, it has to come from a person who is well versed with the subject in question. Some researchers tend to be so easy to criticize a research but then lack the foundation to back their further study. This I believe that the government has a crucial role to fund the research while shinning from over involvement as it may alter the course of the particular study.
Conclusion
This study has established that indeed, knowledge lies on the absolute facts about a phenomenon. While these facts cannot be altered, the perceptions of people regarding them can vary. Indeed, people evaluate and acknowledge facts quite differently thus determining the different levels of knowledge. People’s concepts and conclusions regarding the existing differ this resulting to different levels of knowledge, debates, researches, as well as permanent solutions. In effect, the paper argues in support of the argument ‘We know with confidence only when we know little’ because it reaffirms that doubt is the building block of knowledge. When we doubt situations, we lose confidence, and thus seek to better it possible. This concept applies in equal terms in the entire human and social sciences seeing as each subject is already predetermined and preset to be that kind. These are typical facts that also can be viewed from the viewpoint of knowledge. For History for instance, sources knowledge from recorded past facts and therefore doubting these accounts lead to better discoveries and innovations. Human sciences like biology too rely on doubt for knowledge as refutation of an existing work leads to development of a hypothesis that refutes the given one. In my opinion, lack of trust is indispensable in advancing knowledge and information. However, people should limit it because too much refutation of existing work only proves to be destructive. Knowledge comes from within and without us therefore we should seek to advance it by questioning it.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Pure Essay Experts, 2017 , Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay <http://www.pure-essayexperts.com/theory-of-knowledge-tok-essay/>.