An interesting knowledge question raised here is to what extent was it easy to doubt shared knowledge? Is it possible that intuition and reason are more influential factors in having the ability to doubt knowledge? If we can indeed be doubtful with only limited knowledge, then there is the possibility that when we are questioning our knowledge we can be confident that what we know is wrong. Karl Plagge, a scientist, and engineer who became a German Army officer, was not brainwashed by the propaganda, the fanaticism and the indoctrination like the majority of others. He was not taken in by the limited information he was given. He made a conscious decision to work against the Nazis to protect thousands of Jews, thereby risking his life. How is it that one...
An interesting knowledge question raised here is to what extent was it easy to doubt shared knowledge? Is it possible that intuition and reason are more influential factors in having the ability to doubt knowledge? If we can indeed be doubtful with only limited knowledge, then there is the possibility that when we are questioning our knowledge we can be confident that what we know is wrong. Karl Plagge, a scientist, and engineer who became a German Army officer, was not brainwashed by the propaganda, the fanaticism and the indoctrination like the majority of others. He was not taken in by the limited information he was given. He made a conscious decision to work against the Nazis to protect thousands of Jews, thereby risking his life. How is it that one man was able to distinguish right from wrong from the little knowledge he had, the same knowledge that others had who didn’t arrive at Plagge’s conclusions? Are we all capable of this, perhaps meaning that truthfully, humans are capable of doubting even when knowledge doesn’t increase? Thus, we can argue that it is not truly consistent that people doubt when only limited knowledge is given, indeed we know with confidence when we know little, and only with knowledge, does doubt increase.
In summation, people may assume that NS and history are opposites as areas of knowledge but in fact are somewhat linked. Scientists consistently use evidence and reports from history to further their research and help to stimulate new ideas. Reason and intuition play a key role in confidence in knowledge in both AOK, but more predominantly in NS. However, although this essay has shown that with knowledge doubt increases predominantly in the Natural Sciences,, it does not necessarily mean that it will be the same for the human sciences, like psychology. Some scientists may, in fact, have the intuition to initiate new theories, without doubting previous ones. However, my conclusion may also be biased as I mainly study the sciences. Therefore this may make me more aware of the possibilities of knowledge in this area than others due to having a genuine interest and having focused my study in this area for several years. Ironically, in the pursuit of an answer for this essay, by gathering more knowledge, we have quite possibly raised more questions and thus increased more doubt on the idea.
