As told previously, experiments in the natural sciences are not an end in itself and never truly answer the questions that gave them a purpose. This leads me to my final question: How has doubt changed the way in which knowledge is produced? Doubt can always be found hand-in-hand with knowledge production. If we never question our old knowledge, we’ll never be able to acquire new knowledge. In having doubt, we are able to learn more then from endless data analyzations that don’t really have the purpose of establishing new truths with confidence, but rather to develop a more practical understanding of a certain subject in order to refine previous questions. To illustrate my point on how doubt leads to the production of knowledge, take the example of Albert Einstein, who is seen as the epitome of knowledge. Albert Einstein is widely known for creating the theory of general relativity. Einstein came up with this theory by doubting the “set- in-stone” rules of Newtonian physics. He sought out a more elegant and concise solution because of his many doubts on the original claim. His doubts lead to a further exploration of the topic at hand, resulting in the creation of the theory of general relativity, which introduced a new framework for physics and proposed new concepts of space and time. The role of doubt is to defeat skepticism on its own ground. By doubting not only the evidence of the sense perceptions, but even the fundamental process of reasoning itself, we can establish a truly undoubtful and perfectly certain foundation for knowledge.But just how can uncertainty provide certainty in knowledge claims? As Descartes stated in his Discourse on Method, the first rule in seeking truth is neverto accept anything unless it is presented clearly and distinctly without any reason or occasion for doubt. If one can doubt the proposition “x is y,” then, one cannot saythat he has knowledge that “x is y,” because of uncertainty. To have knowledge means to be certain and fully understand the concepts. If a human being is not omniscient or infallible, then there is always a possibility that one can be mistaken or proven wrong by future evidence, and if there always exists such possibility, then there is always grounds for doubting any claim to knowledge. For example, in my math studies class, I might make the silly error of assuming that cos(x) is multiplication, such as in cos(x+y)?cos(x)+cos(y). This equation is simply not true. The mathematical doubs I have in my calculations can lead me to think of cos(x) as a multiplication of something called cos and x. This couldn’t be farther from the truth! With new found certainty, I can now know that cosine is a function and the cos is used to denote that we are dealing with the cosine function.