p.p1 we’ve found through exploring this extreme

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

Experience is extremely important to giving a good reason for knowledge because it’s impossible to back up ones statements without experiencing something first. My knowledge question is: to what extent does feeling of being completely sure change with the (act of something getting bigger, wider, etc.) of knowledge? My two areas of knowledge are the natural sciences, more specifically, physics, and art, more specifically, the performing art of (making things up on the spot known as improv). Through these areas of knowledge, I’m going to argue that we do know more (in a way where you’re sure you are right) with little knowledge than we do with a lot of knowledge. My first area of knowledge that I’m going to research/dig into is physics. 
When the scientific community only knew the basic laws of gravity and movement, we felt confident that we knew a lot about physics. However, as related to computers and science times of moving ahead or up increased, our (events or objects that prove something) for physical laws expanded, and we were able to expand our worlds of knowledge to the study of outer space also. What we’ve found through exploring this extreme difference/different version in size is that the laws of physics that we have on our planet completely change the extremely big/extremely high level. The scientific community’s doubt in the laws of physics increased with the increase of knowledge available. 
Physical equations are found through the definitions of relationships. For example, the basic movement of equation of d=1/2at^2 allows you to find how far away something is from its original position if you know the increasing speed and time. However, each piece of data has its own doubt (due to lack of (high) quality in the (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) collected through measuring tools), so the more (numbers that change/things that change) there are, the more uncertain you are about the result. The doubt for that basic motion equation is 5%, which is huge when you get to the study of outer space. This is an example of both how knowing a little leads to feeling of being completely sure and doubt. The scientific community felt confident in the knowledge because they would be able model more of the world’s relationships using this equation. However this also increased doubt because the (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) collected using the measuring tools also brought doubt into the data. That being said, once you feel confident in the basic understanding of a relationship between two objects, the doubt increases because of the measurements. 
An example of doubt increasing with more knowledge is how the sun’s corona is hotter than its surface. The second law of (a study of how heat can produce work) states the rule of (using less of something) of energy, which is that energy can never be created or destroyed, it always remains the same. This is the greater knowledge leading to doubt. Based on this law, the sun’s surface should be hotter than the space around it, and this is the only known case in the universe where the thing that something’s heating is hotter than what’s heating it. Once solar physicists found this (event(s) or object(s) that prove something), they found that one of the foundations of physical knowledge, the second law of (a study of how heat can produce work), had been falsified. It was wrong. 
The second law of (a study of how heat can produce work) was established in 1850 when Rudolf Clausius found through doing experiments that heat doesn’t in a sudden and unplanned way flow from hot to cold bodies. The little knowledge found through this (instance of watching, noticing, or making a statement) brought a lot of confidence about the knowledge the scientific had about the universe. Using inductive thinking, scientists created broad rules and applied them to the whole universe, and they’re seeing the limits of using this kind of thinking as a way of (describing a possible future event). 
For something to be thought about/believed a law in physics, it can’t be falsified, however the space around the sun breaks one of the most basic laws we’ve created. What this means is that either the scientists watched/followed it wrong, or the law is wrong, which goes against the very definition of a law. Feeling of being completely sure in physics is defined by the fact that you can create a mathematical equation in order to model the (important events or patterns of things), and it works when it’s tested on different pictures/situations. The fact that this law is proven false brings into question the processes used to find the law, and how this error in process has important (possible) results for the testing methods used to create this law. It brings into question what other possible mistakes in thinking scientists may have about the physical laws they’ve created and base all of their following science on. 
Before they had the (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) through the technology to know what the temperature in and around the sun was, this physical law was never questioned. However, as they gained this (event(s) or object(s) that prove something), they also gained doubt in what was carefully thought about/believed to be one of the most basic rules of physics. The discovery led to more questions than answers. 
My other area of knowledge is religious knowledge. The confirmation that religions change something (to help someone)/take care of someone through the presence of a higher power is regularly through holy and scared text, yet this guard is the casual lie about roundabout thinking. A case is Christianity’s conviction that God made the book The Holy Bible, yet also/and strongly defending/strongly expressing the book The Holy Bible as proof of God’s presence. Other people who have confidence in God may strongly defend/strongly express that human understanding of God’s presence is restricted and mysterious; along these lines reason can’t answer the topic of God’s presence, where confidence can. This use of confidence is powerless and addresses the false idea/plan of promotion (having no knowledge) and the possibility that the (not being there; not being present) of proof proving false God hints that God must exist. Religious confidence is by all accounts a forcing/forceful/interesting positive and high-energy duty which can make the issue of specialist deeply love. Confidence may also change and twist different pieces of information which can be unsafe. People may see just what they need to see as true and positive statement strong need.
The importance of this paper is that it relates to other areas of knowledge beyond these two. It does this because it brings into question how (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) and perception changes the way something is understood/explained. Knowing the strengths and limits of this allow people to see how these same issues can be seen in say, history. But more importantly, it brings into question about whether or not the feeling of being completely sure in a subject should be met with doubt and distrust that we may possibly only know a little. When people feel certain about something, they should question whether it’s because they know a lot or because they know very little. 

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
100% plagiarism free
Sources and citations are provided


Get essay help