“Doubt Is the Key to Knowledge” (Persian Proverb). to What Extent Is This True in Two Areas of Knowledge?

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

To begin with, what is history? The answer to this question varies depending on whom is being inquired. Predominantly, history is regarded as the study of the evolution of ideas or events in chronological order. History is frequently applied to study topics such as economics, culture, politics and society. However, it can also be utilized to clarify alternative topics such as science, ideology, technology and more. The challenging aspect of history is to obtain documents and sources that are not biased or are coherent enough to trust.

History, a collection of the past, holds a lot of information about events and society to help inform us in the present as it is the only data

In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.

History is defined as the study of the science of humanity in the past. It's a broad subject that spans over countless people groups throughout the years that the world has been around. Even before the times we have written word history was still being made, and it is still extremely important. We tend to forget that in our average day to day lives we are still making history. That all over the globe everyone is taking part in what might be in a history book someday.

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

David Hume’s approach to skepticism is very different from Descartes’ ideas, mainly because he believes that it is not good to become skeptical of everything. Hume feels that there are two different types of skepticism: the type the Descartes follows, known as the “antecedent” skepticism that involves doubting everything, and moderate skepticism, which Hume feels is the more reasonable form (Hume 36). Hume feels that antecedent skepticism is pointless, and that by simply doubting everything, one is not able to find an answer to what they are looking for because they may never be satisfied with any form of validity. However, Hume feels that moderate skepticism is “a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy, by preserving a proper impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices, which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion,” (Hume 36). In other words, Hume is saying that moderate skepticism is necessary

Cartesian doubt does not allow us to advance. We would be in a constant state of doubting. How would one lay a foundation of truths if it is possible to doubt all? "No reasoning could ever bring us to a state of assurance and conviction upon any subject" (Hume Section XII part 1).

One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove

Skepticism is the Western philosophical tradition that maintains that human beings can never arrive at any kind of certain knowledge. Originating in Greece in the middle of the fourth century BC, skepticism and its derivatives are based on the following principles:

For instance, in Physics, Newton’s Law of Gravity may almost be one hundred percent definite but one cannot say that it is absolutely true - for example, what if I drop a pencil, it would fall down, but what would happen if it is released and then rises upwards. So we can’t really say anything about this law. For this law to be one hundred percent certain, we would have to know the future which is impossible. Though, we cannot say that it is false, something which is not entirely true does not automatically become false.

The definition of history, is a question which has sparked international debate for centuries between the writers, readers, and the makers of history. It is a vital topic which should be relevant in our lives because it?s important to acknowledge past events that have occurred in our world that deeply influences the present. This essay will discuss what history is, and why we study it.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

As the great Socrates ones said, that by admiting that you dont know anything, so you can learn something that is how I discover the things that I want to know. The only way of knowing things is the way of becoming conscious of our unknowing, so we can learn. Awareness of the unknowing is the beginning of knowledge. Thus, we can always look for the truth, but the best is if never said that we found it. We may just think of the truth. We may think of what is the truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics, but let’s never be sure. That is the only way how we are going to become bigger and better people.

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to