You are on page 1of 3

Many people find doubts about understanding things when there is no knowledge whatsoever on

the topic. However even with no knowledge; people can still show confidence in their
understanding of the topic.

"We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases": JW
Von Goethe.

This statement claims that when people have little knowledge, they behave confidently.
Consequently, more knowledge is dug; with new knowledge, development brings new opinions; Commented [RT1]: Not the right word

with new opinions come theories that need to be examined and understood. Therefore, the
original opinions are reformed, and now personal knowledge is discussed among people;
colleagues, friends, people with a higher profession or degree.

This is when personal knowledge shifts into shared knowledge.

Possibilities: Conversely, with knowledge, doubts doesn't necessarily increase. In like manner,
proving that we can have high confidence even with high knowledge. Commented [RT2]: Under what circumstances, why?

On the other hand, it's said that knowledge is inversely related to confidence; when there is high
knowledge there is high confidence and vice versa, therefore a misleading premise. Commented [RT3]: Why- analyse it

Does having confidence relate to having doubts? In contrast, confidence is the total opposite of
having doubts. For example, if a doctor has knowledge of being a surgeon, then he has high Commented [RT4]: Not a good example

confidence in conducting the surgery/questioning an assumption and arguments with so little

doubts. In addition, when the doctor explains this to the patient's family/guardian, which is the
process of sharing personal knowledge about the procedure and the risks,

For the level of AOK, let's start with Mathematics; every new way and formulae show us how
much a mathematician can have in doubts/opinions.

"On each decision, the mathematical analysis only got me to the point where my intuition had to
take over": Robert Jensen. The earlier statement proves when knowledge increases likewise the
confidence increases as well, therefore they are exclusive.

Finally, with the Natural Sciences; Karl Popper: a philosopher of science, who observes how we:
the humanity takes many theories for granted without being it being suspected, except for
scientists who don't concur to a theory undoubtedly, but has the right to question it due to the
knowledge they have on the topic, therefore justifying the data of the theory. Additionally, the
scientists will always judge the theory from the perspective of their own observation, proving
that science is never only a driven observation, but also a biased one. Finally, Popper stated that
all the theories have to be criticised to any length, furthermore leading to a statement claiming
that scientists are also trying to falsify their own theory. This resulted in Popper also stating that
only true scientists with knowledge on the topic would falsify their own theories then fake
scientists. This process of a scientist trying to falsify their theories is called falsification. In
contrast, Popper stated that "We need to stop claiming that scientists use induction, they don't,
scientist only uses deduction"; this statement shows how Popper claims that scientist with true
knowledge on the matter would not need to run background theories, but have the confidence to
know their background theories without any check. Conclusively, the method that scientists use
is falsification as it only seems to meet deductive reasoning. For example,when having two
premises, one true, and false would immediately give a false conclusion via deductive reasoning,
unless it's a valid argument.

Nevertheless, as our knowledge increases in falsifying the theory, our doubts also increases
leaving us to make vast assumptions. Leaving it relentless unless the assumptions observed to be
true then it's a valid theory. On the other hand, making assumptions is an inductive reasoning
hence, proving that without knowledge there are still doubts. However, the early stages of
scientists relied on inductive reasoning for gaining knowledge hence science is not proven
without inductive.

The Kant and Popper falsification; similar to “I don’t know what is correct, but I know that it’s
not this.” As Popper has enough knowledge, hence is confident enough to doubt a statement

Without delay, in the field of WOK, we have the Reason, Intuition, and Imagination.

For Reason, which is highly correlated with the title:

As illustrated above, how Popper observed how scientists use the deductive and inductive
reasoning; for drawing general conclusions. Again, as scientists have used inductive reasoning to
create assumptions to create premises when they have neither any knowledge nor confidence to
understand the situation, but only to observe weather which premises are true/false.

Next, Intuition; “I’m supposed to be a scientific person but I use intuition more than logic in
making basic decisions”: Seymour R. Cray.

The above quotation proves how with the knowledge, people can sometimes gain ideas from
their subconscious; without any support views, but with enough confidence in finding its relation
from the conclusion or the premises. Leading to, “Knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds
from thence to concepts, and then ends with ideas”: Immanuel Kant
Finally, along with the Imagination; "To imagine is everything, to know is nothing at all.":
Anatole France. Establishing, how without any knowledge, we would still have the confidence to
imagine unique things in the world, without doubting its own imagination or creation.

All things considered, with knowledge; doubts and confidence similarly both increases, but
confidence and doubts are inversely related. For instance, when there is little knowledge present,
people tend to behave confidently, without doubting themselves, but it's said that with the
knowledge our doubts increase showing how much of validity their theories are being proved to
an extent. This reveals that JW Von Goethe has observed this theory closely and made a valid
conclusion; based on the premises. Commented [RT5]: The analysis is very limited. Too many
quotes which can never substitute analysis.

No RLS, poor organisation