Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

A German statesmen and writer named JW von Goethe once said, “Doubts grows with knowledge”.
Doubt is a strong emotion that some people are naturally born with. Generally, the human brain is
full of complexity and instability as the production of knowledge was also driven by our emotion.
Therefore it can be said that human have the tendency to involve subjectivity in perceiving
informations. Systematically, doubt and uncertainty will exist in our mind as subjectivity make the
mind to persist knowledge. In my opinion the more knowledge we have, the more we become aware
of the things that we still don’t know because I believe that the human brain has its own nature to
have high curiosity. Moreover, the titles are claiming that the more knowledge we have, the more
doubtful we are, can be discussed by referring to areas of knowledge such as History and Human
History is an area of knowledge that is defined as the study of the past. One manifest problem in
trying to know the past is that it no longer exist. Moreover, in order to validate the causes in any
events that had happened in the past, it is essential to have these 3 features in mind; evidence,
significance and the explanation. All of this features can be obtain by primary and secondary
source. Moreover, based from my personal experience, we know that every human that live in 2001
must have known about the tragical event of 9/11 attacks in World Trade Center, which have killed
more than 2,606 people. Subsequently there has been many authorities such as the eye-witness,
governments and other interest groups whom are trying to make sense the background cause of this
tragical event. Furthermore, I was born in 2000 and as a 1 year old kid, I do not have enough
knowledge to understand much about the 9/11 attacks. However as I grow up and become an
elementary student where I do have enough knowledge to confidently state that this event was
caused by a group of terrorist called Al-Qaeda. But as I entered the high-school, where I was given
a personal task to do a research on 9/11 attacks I found out that, this tragical event can’t certainly
concluded as terrorism attack because the more I do research about the event, the more doubtful the
information is. Since there are a lot of different perspective on the cause of the event such as insider
or foreign government intentionally planed the attack. Thus, as my doubt increases, my confidence
in the validity of the cause of this historical event based from authoritative source has dropped
On the other hand, historical facts is not a subjective matter that can be justified in a simple form of
true or false. In this condition, it can be said that with or without knowledge, the amount of
confidence we have in historical facts can’t be distorted by doubts as the history can’t never repeat
itself. But with the existence of evidences, history can be assured. For example, when my teacher
asked the class rhetorically “Who is the leader of the Nazi Party?” Everyone would simply answer
it by stating the fact that Adolf Hitler is the leader of the Nazi Party. No one can argue with it
because both primary and secondary resource in documenting the history of Nazi Party is directing
toward the fact that the party was controlled by a Germany leader name Adolf Hitler. Therefore it
can be concluded that with the existence of high evidence will prompt people to have high
confidence to believe in any historical facts.
The human sciences is study that is done in the attempt of reducing the mystery of complex human
nature by studying human behavior in systematically. Like wise, human science is the same as
natural science, all of the human science journal are done based on observation, measurement and
experiment. With that being said, journal in human science is not a firm work, it was rather a
continuous work. Even professional psychologist themselves are doubting their work which they
welcome analysis to renew their work. This can be seen through an analysis which was done in
2015 that stated 36% of findings from a total of 100 studies in a top 3 psychology journals help up,
when the original experiment were rigorously redone. (Carey, 2015)
Another example of experienced professional psychologist doubting other medical expert is
demonstrated by Rosenhan Experiment (1973) which the aim of the study is to determine whether
medical professionals are able to tell the sane from the insane based in clinical setting. The study
was done by gathering participants consisting of 3 female and 5 male. The participant will call the
hospital and asked for a diagnosis appointment by using fake names and jobs in order to protect
their health and employment record. During the appointment all of the participants complained that
they had been hearing unfamiliar voices of the same sex as they were. The voice was saying these
words; ’empty’, ‘hollow’, ‘thud’ and it was unclear. These are existential symptoms which arise from
concerns about how meaningless your life is. They were chosen because there were no mention of
existential psychosis in the literature. After the participants admitted to the psychiatric ward, they
stop showing signs of abnormality symptoms and act ordinarily. It was noted that the pseudo
patients were nervous as they are afraid if their act was caught. Then the pseudo patients were asked
to do ward activities; speaking with staff and patients. If they were asked on how they felt by staff,
they should answer that they were fine and no longer experiencing the symptoms. Individually, the
pseudo patient had been asked to get out by their own devices by convincing staff they were sane.
During this time, the pseudo patients make notes on their observation and this notes was done
secretly, but since no one was bothered, the note taking was done more openly. The pseudo patient
observe the behavior of staff toward patients by approaching the staff member by making a request,
in the following form: ‘Pardon me, Mr/Mrs/Dr X, could you tell me when I will be presented at the
staff meeting?’. (or ‘…when am I likely to be discharged?’). Similar procedure was carried out with
Students at Stanford University with students asking university staff a simple question. This results
were used to compare. The result of the study shows that psychiatrist was unable to tell the
difference between sane and insane people reliably and most Psychiatrists would normally play safe
in their diagnosis to avoid outcry when patients were released. Therefore from the example above it
can be concluded that if our personal knowledge increase then the more we have confidence in
doubting existed shared knowledge. In other word, being knowledgeable person would also mean
you will have high confidence and doubts in others. So confidence doesn’t only happen when we
know little.
On the other hand, when personal knowledge increase the confidence will also increase and doubt
does not necessarily increase within knowledge. Based from my personal judgement, the more I
learn about psychology journal and theory, the more I become confidence when I talk about
psychology to my friend or applying it in my school work. For example, I’m going to have a
psychology exam in the next 2 days. So I decided to study all of the exam materials starting from
now. Then during the examination day, I wasn’t nervous about it because I feel that I have prepared
enough to take the exam and since my confidence is high, I believe that I was doing well in
answering the questions. Therefore it can be said that being knowledgeable doesn’t mean that I will
become a skeptical person because doubt does not continuously grow within all knowledge.
Overall, the more knowledge we have, the more we become aware of the things that we still don’t
know. With that being said, doubt as an emotion can be both detrimental or not in the growth of
knowledge because being too skeptical can lead to doubt everything and trust none. While being too
open-minded can lead to gullibility where a person can be easily deceived by insufficient evidence.
While sufficient evidences are usually found in reliable source, however the example above has
shows that some reliable source might not be dependable, as the nature of evidence will always be
veiled by subjectivity.

Post Author: admin


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out