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 been searching for for centuries, according to the modern definition, knowledge is facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a topic. René Descartes, a noted 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 knew, wondering whether the information was true or false, and ultimately came up with “cogito ergo sum” which translates to “I think therefore I am.” All he can have confidence in, as in knowing for certain, 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 phrase expresses that you will be more confident the less you know, and with more knowledge, confidence will decrease. However, it could be interpreted that we can only have confidence in a small amount of knowledge, while we doubt most things. Descartes is an expert 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Modern science and philosophy developed from Descartes' famous philosophy on knowledge, where he defined knowledge in terms of doubt. He distinguishes factual knowledge (scientia) and weaker forms of belief (persuasio) as follows: “I distinguish the two in this way: there is belief when there remains some reason that can lead us to doubt, but knowledge is belief based on a reason so strong that he can never be shaken by any stronger reason." As Descartes explored his way through knowledge, he realized that he was sure of only one thing: that he knows he exists because he can think. Descartes used doubt as a contrast to certainty. As doubt increased, certainty decreased 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 anything with certainty. They believed that knowledge could only be acquired by our sense organs and could be easily deceived. They also argued that the universe is constantly changing, even science is proven wrong from time to time, and it is almost impossible for a fact to be true for a long time. Descartes' claims are proven by history; we can never know what true knowledge is. A perfect example of his claims would be that it was once accepted that the world was flat. Galileo Galilei was an Italian philosopher and astronomer who pioneered the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system as opposed to the geocentric cosmology that was accepted as true at the time. 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 the telescope led Galileo to believe that the Earth has a round spherical shape rather than a flat surface. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the idea that the Earth was a flat surface was widely accepted as real, and was even supported by the respected and "knowledgeable" scientists of the time. TheCopernican heliocentric system was rejected by society, and Galileo's defense of the system led to an Inquisition trial against him. This historical event demonstrates the idea of ​​Descartes and the Sophists that knowledge cannot be trusted. It also supports the statement “We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases.” Before Christ, most tribes and societies undoubtedly believed that the world was governed by Gods. As time passed and people gained knowledge, they began to doubt what they knew and discovered. What would once have been accepted as fact now remains a theory or one of the current possibilities. 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 notorious for abusing its power. During his reign the Catholic Church committed several crimes, from the burning of women believed to be "witches" to the cover-up of the rape of thousands of children. The Church has also intervened on scientific issues, as in the Galileo Galilei case already mentioned. A similar case is the Jan Hus fire. Hus was a Czech (Bohemian) priest closely associated with the Church. Throughout his career he was involved in the Western Schism (where there were three rival popes with their own following). Due to his relationship 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 run by humans. The Church was not satisfied with Hus' philosophy because it represented a threat to their power. In order to stop the spread of the idea, the Council of Constance was convened and Hus was invited to join it. He was reluctant at first, but obliged nonetheless when he was offered safe conduct. When Hus arrived he was imprisoned and subsequently burned at the stake. Followers of the Church continued to blindly believe in what the Church offered as “knowledge.” No one doubted the Church because no one had enough information to doubt them. As science advanced and human knowledge expanded, people began to question their own beliefs. As a result, the Church has been stripped of its power and is no longer a ruling institution. Since the dawn of Greek philosophy, philosophers, scientists and researchers have tried to explain the condition of unawareness 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, even if he knows nothing; while I, since I know nothing, don't think I know. In this insignificant detail, therefore, I seem wiser than him, because I don't think I know what I don't know. it is actually a prefiguration of what will later be called the Dunning-Kruger effect. As far as science goes, there is a logical explanation for why people who are ignorant or unskilled in a certain field believe they are much more competent than they are. The Dunning-Kruger effect, discovered in the late 1990s by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, occurs when people with low competence fail to adequately judge and understand their own level of competence. The lack of judgment and awareness is attributed to their low level of competence, which prevents them from correctly analyzing themselves, leading to an overestimation of their abilities. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay While the Dunning-Kruger effect explains why people with a level of expertise.