When appear. For example, if one knew nothing then

When acquiring knowledge, it
begins to harbor skepticism. With doubt questions such as how certain one is
appear. For example, if one knew nothing then they’d build upon their knowledge
and if one knew some information then they could be susceptible to bias to new
knowledge. In other words, the more theories one attracts the more confused and
doubtful one becomes. Doubt rises without a criterion for certainty and
decreases when certainty is acquired. However, the larger amount of information
requiring confirmation begins to demolish certainty. This situation of a larger
acquirement of knowledge and an even greater amount of doubt follows is
extremely present in two areas of knowledge – religion and science. Considering
that knowledge is justified true belief and confidence is certainty it is
extremely difficult to define what the universal criteria is when encountering
justification for certainty however, in science this correctness comes from
tests when in religion this certainty comes from faith.

The field of religion is
established on theology and faith. For example, one may believe in a higher
deity for guidance and a justification for reason. Similarly, a Christian will
inevitably fall submissive to the teachings of God because that is whom their
religion is enhanced by. In addition to doubt being the questioning of what one
thought they knew the more it can be seen as a weakness too.  Its
universally known that beyond any possibility of doubt that our consciousness
exists, and that some kind of reality external to our consciousness exists. The
rest of our knowledge consists of our understanding of the nature of those two
existents. As the reality we perceive is hard, it is possible to test our ideas
against it, and to learn. However, it is almost impossible for such glean
knowledge to be absolutely certain because certainly some element of doubt
always remains. For example, the world we know could end tomorrow, and be
revealed as a complex hallucination.  Additionally, reason is the primary
substance of our conscious mind, but is not formatted by it. It is almost a “granted”
of consciousness, its foundation rooted in external reality. Therefore, its
reliability cannot be a absolute. Doubt like this: naturally beyond disproof
but with no basis in evidence, can be reviewed as “empty doubt”. Empty doubt
is essentially meaningless. by definition, there is no evidence for it and by its
nature, we can’t do anything about it. However it is entirely familiar to those
who would demolish the human mind as if it was some kind of invincible weapon.
However, we know that some sort of reality exists-we know that it can get extremely
unpleasing, if not deathly. Therefore, its impossible to simply bathe mindlessly
in the middle of two equal and at the same time opposite empty doubts. Empty
doubts by their nature is undecidable. Therefore, they are not mechanism of
comprehension, and have no value to a conscious mind in its necessary pursuit
of knowledge. We must attempt to decide between propositions and are forced
into the realm of “real doubt”.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Our knowledge of reality can
be separated into two parts: our knowledge of facts and our understanding of
why they are so. The first part consists of observations of things that exist
while the second is of theories and statements of natural law. Our knowledge of
the facts of reality may be incomplete, but what we know, we definitely know.
There may be more details to discover, but as reality itself is difficult and
not self-contradictory, further exploration of reality cannot invalidate
earlier knowledge. Thus if we discover an inconsistency, we know we have come
across some previously unknown factor. It is almost impossible to know every
single fact of reality-only something like the universe can guard the
information. Our ability to understand the universe consists of our ability
firstly to abstract the basis of reality into concepts, and secondly to use
logic to arrive at testable theories about it, following the scientific method.
The ability to abstract the basis of reality allows us to think about multiple
concretes independently, and the second allows us to discover the laws and
principles which explain the ultimate facts of reality. Our understanding of
natural laws is more susceptible to error than the basic collection of facts
and their digestion into concepts. As theories explain rather than describe,
they can’t be verified as directly by reference to primary perceptions.
However, the accumulation of successful predictions, and the building of
further successful theories and technologies on their foundations, eventually
proves them: in that no real doubt remains. Then one might still have areas to
seek to improve them, or come to acceptance: but not to doubt their basic
truth. The blood groups are a good example. Their existence and the resulting
rules of blood mixing were established. Inconsistencies, such as clotting between
supposedly compatible groups showed up further blood factors, extending the
earlier knowledge but not invalidating it. Further investigation then explained
the blood groups by referring to micro molecules and the process of the immune
system. Much still remains to be learned about the immune system, but the amount
of consistent data and applications proves the basic theory beyond all real
doubt. If im going to learn about the world, then I most definitelyhave to make
one core assumption- that it is possible to gain knowledge about reality which
can help me preserve and improve my life. This is not an absolute: there is no
necessity for it to be true. However, if it is not true then I am incapacitated
by unknown limited factors.  Unless I am
just going to give up and die, I have to assume that the amalgamation of my
senses-my reason and the nature of the world, do in fact allow me to acquire knowledge.
I do not have to assume that all knowledge is accessible, only that enough,
sufficient amount of it is. This, therefore, is the prime principle by which
any rational being wishing to live must act: I must try to learn about the
world. For that to occur, this is the key principle it must assume: knowledge
of reality is possible. It is a very important point that although I must start
by assuming this principle, within doing so I am testing it. Following events
could prove the principle wrong, and therefore the principle is impossible, but
until then it must be held. Ultimately a rational being cannot begin anywhere

builds on valid knowledge. This the cause of the exponential growth in
scientific knowledge. New theories suggest new roads for investigation. The burdensome
life’s work of one person becomes the starting point for another. New knowledge
leads to advanced technology, which increases the rate at which further new
knowledge can be gained, and so on in the increasing spiral.  Result is
the virtual disappearance of many former plagues of mankind; a massive increase
in human productivity-everyday technologies and luxuries beyond the imagination
of previous generations; the ability to fly out of the world and to reach the
planets. There can be no real doubt that knowledge builds on knowledge. But for
this process to work, the knowledge being built upon must be fundamentally
valid. The process works, with spectacular success. Therefore, the knowledge is
valid. It is true. We can be certain of what we know, with only empty doubt
remaining its cognitively meaningless. When a theory precisely accounts for a
wide range of things and contradicts nothing known, then either it is basically
true or it is an amazing coincidence. By definition, the latter is very
unlikely. When we can make computers save on a chip, when we can engineer
microbes as we like, when we can make tons of metal fly us through the sky with
our command: we don’t think, “Wow, we just got lucky!” We know:
“Such is the power of our minds to know reality and by knowing it, to turn
it to our use.” (Rob Craig)