Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years. In that time we have been studying and documenting the world around us in order to understand the universe in which we live a little better. It is the ultimate goal of humanity to advance both technologically and in knowledge. In this way as we learn more and more our confidence in how much we know shrinks; with each new discovery more questions are raised than answered. This of course depends on how one chooses to look at the amount of knowledge we humans have amassed. This concept can be explored through the lense of various TOK concepts, Perspectives and examples. Firstly using human made corroboration techniques we are able to learn and explore. These corroboration techniques are used to confirm our suspicions or findings about something through man made systems or concepts. One area of knowledge this is used in is the natural sciences. As we study the natural world through our human developed scientific techniques we find that we find we know very little about the universe as a whole. For example the fundamentals of string theory, black holes, and how we know more about our moon then our oceans. We understand these things on a very basic level and as we discover more we find that more questions are raised than answered. To delve a little deeper, black holes are a fairly new discovery and were only discovered because generations of scientists discovered things about space and physics and built a knowledge base, this knowledge base was then called upon and explored to answer new questions and discover more things. In the example of black holes the scientist Albert Einstein started the chain that would lead to the discovery of black holes with his “general Theory of relativity”. He found that gravity was not a force but a bend in space time. In this way black hole are patches of distorted spacetime in various areas of space. This then led to the discovery of the various types of black holes, which led to the various properties of these new black holes and so on. It is in this way that science has a way of opening more doors when a question is answered. However there is a concession when looking at how the sciences help us corroborate information and gain new insight that then generates new questions. This is the practice of using man made systems to discover information. This can be seen in the case of engineering as it is a completely man made science. This means that it is hard to know things because it is discovered by a man made system. In this way our confidence in the things we discover is a challenge. In conclusion as we try to prove our ideas about the world around us we find holes in our knowledge base and so we are led to ask more questions to fill those gaps; proving that we know with confidence only when we know little; With knowledge doubt increases. Next as we gain new perspective on various things we find that we actually know very little, and this knowledge gap generates new questions and doubts about what we know. This is ever present in the study of history and forces us to question what we think we know. For example the building of the pyramids in egypt. We know that the pyramids we designed by the pharos of egypt as a shrine to themselves and their awesome power, as they were believed to be descendants of the gods. We also know that they were constructed over decades by thousands of slaves. We don’t know exactly how they were built or the exact materials used to create them. We also don’t know how the thousand pound blocks that were used to construct them were moved, we also don’t know how they possessed the engineering concepts in order to build them. However we have a lot of knowledge of recorded history to offset what we don’t know and in this way facilitate the gaps we have. However this is dismantled despite having lots of recorded history there are still tons of gaps these gaps call into question what we do know and if what we know is true at all. In this way the combination of the gaps we have and the credibility of our recorded history increases the doubs in what we do know and confirms that we know with confidence only when we know little; With knowledge doubt increases. Finally the certainty in what we know is up to our interpretation of objective facts and perspective. Depending on how you look at it, it can be said that we know a lot about our natural world and science for the amount of time we have been studying it and how far we have advanced. This can be seen again in the area of knowledge of the natural sciences and more specifically in our study of space. We have been studying space since 750 BC (Asger) that is a few thousand years compared to the hundreds of thousands we have existed. In this way it can be said that we as humans know alot about space in comparison to how long we have been studying it. However this can be called into question. To prove this we can look at a previous example. Our oceans, more specifically how we know more about our moon than our oceans. The NOAA reports that 95% of our oceans remain unexplored. That is to say that we know very little about deep ocean, as we have mapped a majority of the upper ocean already. The question is why? The deep ocean is very deep and in this way there is a lot of water pressure, this means humans can’t venture down into the depths without proper machinery. The deep ocean is also very dark and because of that hard to explore. In comparison we have mapped 98% of venus and 69% of mars (The conversation), this means we have our moon and neighboring planets mapped better than our deep ocean. We know lots about many different areas of the natural sciences it is all a matter of how you look at our discovery. We may not have the technology to explore and learn about our oceans. This shows that depending on your interpretation the statement we know with confidence only when we know little; With knowledge doubt increases is relative to the amount of time we have been observing the world around us. In conclusion the statement we know with confidence only when we know little; With knowledge doubt increases is overwhelmingly true. When considering our corroborative techniques and our acquisition of perspective we find that the gaps in our knowledge led us to new questions and bring into question what we already know. It also raises more question and calls into question our confidence in what we know. This is despite the many interpretations we have on what we know because in the end it doesn’t matter how long we have been at something or how much we have grown, we still know very little and this is proven by what we do know; casting a shadow of doubt on all that we have learned.