Goethe, a German writer and statesman, once said: “We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge, doubt increases.” But what is knowledge? A term that philosophers have researched for centuries, according to the modern definition, knowledge is made up of facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. René Descartes, a well-known French scientist, mathematician and philosopher, widely considered the father of modern philosophy, had an interesting approach to knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge: doubt. He doubted everything he had learned and known, wondering if the information was true or false, and finally arrived at “cogito ergo sum” which translates to “I think therefore I am”. All he can trust, and certainly know, is that he exists because he is capable of thinking. This partly explains the phrase “We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge, doubt increases.” The expression expresses that we will be more confident the less we know, and that with more knowledge, confidence will decrease. However, it could be interpreted that we can only trust a small amount of knowledge, while doubting most things. Descartes is a learned philosopher; his knowledge leads him to trust a single statement and doubt the rest of what he knows. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayModern science and philosophy was built from Descartes' famous philosophy of knowledge, where he defined knowledge in terms of doubt. He distinguishes between factual knowledge (scientia) and weaker forms of conviction (persuasio) as follows: "I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains a reason which could lead us to doubt, but knowledge is a belief based on reason. so strong that it can never be shaken by a stronger reason. As he explored his path through knowledge, Descartes realized that he was only sure of one thing: that he knows he exists because he can think. Descartes used doubt as a contrast to certainty. As doubt increased, certainty diminished, and Descartes did not find many things certain. Doubt has played an important role in philosophy since Greek philosophy began to take shape. The Sophists also used doubt as a tool to explore knowledge and came to the conclusion that we can never truly know something for sure. They believed that knowledge could only be obtained from our sense organs and that they could easily be deceived. They also argued that the universe is constantly changing, that even science gets it wrong from time to time, and that it is almost impossible for a fact to be true for a long period of time. Descartes' statements are proven by history; we can never know what true knowledge is. A perfect example of his statements would be that the world was once considered flat. Galileo Galilei was an Italian philosopher and astronomer who paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system as opposed to the geocentric cosmology which was then accepted as true. The Copernican heliocentric system is a cosmological model in which the Sun is at or near a central point and other bodies, including the Earth, orbit around it. His studies with thetelescope led Galileo to believe that the Earth is a round spherical shape rather than a flat surface. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the idea that the Earth was a flat surface was widely accepted as factual and was even supported by the respected and "knowledgeable" scientists of the day. The Copernican heliocentric system was rejected by society and Galileo's defense of this system resulted in an Inquisition process against him. This historical event proves the idea of ​​Descartes and the Sophists that knowledge cannot be trusted. He also supports the statement “We know with confidence only when we know a little; with knowledge, doubt increases.” Before Christ, most tribes and societies undoubtedly believed that the world was ruled by gods. As time passed and people gained knowledge, they began to doubt what they knew and discovered. What was once accepted as fact today remains a theory or possibility at present. Christianity and the Church have played an important role throughout history. The institution has been one of the most powerful groups for several centuries, and is unfortunately infamous for its abuses of power. During his reign, the Catholic Church committed several crimes, from burning women considered "witches" to covering up the rape of thousands of children. The Church has also intervened in scientific areas, as in the case of Galileo Galilei, mentioned previously. A similar case is that of the Jan Hus fire. Hus was a Czech (Bohemian) priest closely linked to the Church. Throughout his career he was involved in the Western Schism (where there were three rival popes with their own supporters). Because of his connections with the Church, Hus was already a man in the spotlight. As Hus studied the Bible and philosophy, he realized that since humans are imperfect by nature, the Church should also be imperfect since it is led by humans. The Church was unhappy with Hus's philosophy because it posed a threat to its power. To prevent this idea from spreading, the Council of Constance was convened and Hus was invited to join it. He was reluctant at first, but obliged when offered safe conduct. When Hus arrived, he was imprisoned and then burned alive. Followers of the Church blindly continued to believe in what the Church offered as “knowledge.” No one questioned the Church because no one had enough information to doubt it. As science advanced and human knowledge expanded, people began to question their beliefs. As a result, the Church was stripped of its power and is no longer a ruling institution. Since the beginning of Greek philosophy, philosophers, scientists and researchers have tried to explain the condition of ignorance of one's own stupidity. Socrates' explanation: “I am wiser than this man, for none of us seems to know anything great and good; but he thinks he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I don't know anything, don't feel like I know it. On this insignificant point, I therefore appear wiser than him, because I do not believe I know what I do not know. is in reality a prefiguration of what will later be defined as the Dunning-Krüger effect. When it comes to science, there is a logical explanation why people who are ignorant or not competent in a given field believe themselves to be much more competent than they are. The Dunning-Kruger effect, discovered in the late 1990s.