The production of knowledge requires accepting conclusions that go beyond the evidence. In this essay, we will analyze and discuss the fifth ToK question “Knowledge production requires accepting conclusions. that go beyond the evidence for them.” We will first talk about ways of accepting knowledge on what it is based on, evidence used to prove theories, and theories becoming evidence. We will then talk about reason and logic in accepting claims beyond evidence, their applicability, and how they are enforceable. Finally, we will discuss the acceptance of knowledge claims that go beyond evidence in different subjects like history, natural and human sciences, and finally religions and ethics. Knowledge that claims to be approved uses different types of justifications such as: deduction, empiricism, probability theory, authoritative testimony. In addition to those mentioned previously, there is abductive reasoning, Occam's razor, induction, logical positivism or pragmatism which we will not analyze here. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayDeduction especially used in the fields of natural and social sciences, takes into account all observed or known factors in a problem and sees with the correlation between each other, which is the correct theory. With probability theory claiming that if all factors and outcomes coincide and make sense, especially if they had a small chance of doing so, the knowledge claim reduced the chances of being wrong or being a simple coincidence. Empiricism is sense evidence, meaning that all observations are inherently empirical. Using axioms, scientific laws, research, or previous results to prove a theory or knowledge is semi-empirical. Authoritative testimony is the appeal to criteria and authority, meaning that if subject matter experts say it, it must be true. or largely true, but as with scientific laws and virtually all human knowledge, we are not sure of the correctness of our perception of the world and its “mechanism”. Are humans capable of perceiving reality as it is or is our image of the world false or distorted? In this case, our scientific laws could all be effective theories, a theory that turns out to be true and works within certain limits but does not represent the reality of the fact, it is only a coincidence due to a wrong view of the reality. But does our knowledge constitute a solid foundation? Since the dawn of time, humans have relied on evidence to prove the veracity of a theory, evidence verified by a rigorous scientific method of observation and empirical calculation, these proofs themselves rely on others and this according to a pyramid scheme impossible to verify from the inside. . Some scientists have doubts about the truth of certain knowledge claims, and if the base of the knowledge pyramid is false, we would not be able to prove it or even discover it until the pyramids collapse, this means that at some point we could be completely stuck. in the expansion of our scientific knowledge due to our previous errors. In more abstract areas of knowledge like religion, one might wonder whether proofs need to be proven. Unable to use empiricism in this area, this is the main point of atheistsagainst believers: if God exists, why can't we observe him or have the slightest trace or clue of his presence. Now that we have explored ways to endorse knowledge claims, we can ask whether assumptions are relevant in different areas of knowledge. Starting with the areas of reason and logic. Accepting claims beyond evidence means accepting the fact that you cannot reasonably and logically explain these hypotheses using any type of knowledge endorsement or testing method. Using a new factor in your calculations or thinking to see if it makes sense is the logical thing to do. So this means that the answer to the question "can you accept claims beyond evidence in the realms of reason and logic" is no, however, the most logical thing to do when you are stuck in your research is to accept a new assertion. Imagining something, building knowledge about it is the basis of “all” belief creation. And when, in science, deduction, empirical or scientific method is not sufficiently advanced or sufficient for further research, most scientists develop a theory and then prove it through experimentation. You can't always discover new information using the same tools and empirical observations. Very often in human history, a key discovery has revolutionized the way we research and interpret the world. In the natural and human sciences, accepting assertions beyond evidence is a frequent practice in all theory development. Especially in physics, where calculations lead us to incomprehensible results, scientists accept claims beyond the evidence to justify the results. For example, the discovery of Black Holes in 1915 with Einstein's relativity formulas was only mathematical; scientists deduced that a gravitational singularity could exist thanks to calculation. However, the first empirical detection of a black hole took place 56 years later, in 1971 thanks to the Uhuru satellite. Calculations are just numbers on paper and are often far from reality, especially in complex and unknown fields like astrophysics. The international scientific community has hypothesized, believing the formulas of Einstein (and his peers) and accepting the claim that, at any given moment, a mass can warp space-time. Making assumptions is also used to simplify calculations when a phenomenon is unpredictable. Physicists create a fictional set of laws and use them with approximations to simulate it. Ideal gases are the best example, because fluid mechanics is still a mystery and therefore it is impossible to predict the movement of a liquid or gas. A scientist simplified the mechanism inside the molecules to create a module that acts similar to a real molecule or gas. atom. When we talk about what-ifs in history, we ask ourselves if they are even possible, because the past is not meant to be something unknown. The main weakness of history is its fallibility and traces of the past are not representative of reality and can be falsified for unknown purposes. The texts that have survived throughout history often come from the ruling society of the time, with other traces being destroyed or poorly preserved (Example: destruction of books and works of art by the Nazi government, because not in line with their ideals). Moreover, history is above all a question of point of view, and since history is written by humans subject to).