Such their doubt is satisfied by relatively reliable evidence.

Such as in the case of Galileo, where Galileo’s doubt of the Church’s theory regarding the relationship between the Earth and the Sun led to further scientific analysis to prove the Earth is indeed round. Through this, we are able to see that doubt may lead to new conclusions that may refute previous standing theories. Another example would be Darwin’s theory of evolution. Despite making claims and stating evidence to support his theory, Darwin’s theory raised more questions than answers. Darwin himself doubted the theory proposed by the Church, and instead established that evolution must have occurred through “short and sure, though slow steps”. (Darwin, 162) Through this, we are able to see that doubt in sciences, especially in biology, leads to more non-conclusive questions that may further develop the theory. The logic and reasoning commonly used in the perception of knowledge in natural sciences can equally be applied to questioning an existing theory. Where, as a biology student, the cell cycle could be used as a real-life example. The information given regarding the division of the cell is questioned as one becomes uncertain of the size the cell grows to in order to trigger division, or the mechanism that triggers the cell to multiply. This further leads to investigation into the topic, which may prompt further discovery of new knowledge, in this case, radiation and cancer-inducing factors, such as excessive alcohol and smoking is deemed as the cause of cancerous mutations in human cells. Thus, knowledge is updated through continuous doubt. However, doubt itself cannot be the sole cause for the development of new scientific theories. There must be an extent of assumption, as one must persevere their doubt until their doubt is satisfied by relatively reliable evidence. Thus showing that it is almost impossible to know with confidence, as doubt is derived from knowledge. This further illustrates the implications of confidence in knowing on society, as knowing with confidence could possibly lead to ignorance. In conclusion, doubt and knowledge are more intertwined with each other than we think. However, it is impossible to accurately deduce the significance of doubt as the key to attaining knowledge due to the breadth and depth of knowledge in each respective area of knowledge. However, it can be argued that through careful study and research in philosophy and natural sciences, doubt is ultimately an indispensable and important factor as the key to knowledge. It can also be argued that despite its importance in the attainment of knowledge, if utilized incorrectly or without evidence and basis, doubt can serve the contradicting effect on knowledge, thus leading to the regression of knowledge. Hence, the statement “knowing with confidence only when we know little” holds partially true as evidence required to establish doubt is limited, albeit leading to ignorance of an individual.