“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves and the world around us” (Socrates). In my understanding the theory of knowledge prescribed title (PT) infers that the more we know the more uncertain we are about the knowledge and the more we doubt it. Contrarily, the less we know the more confident we are about the knowledge and the less we doubt it. However, we must have a clear comprehension of the meaning of confidence and doubt. Confidence is certainty or our ability to rely on something. On the other hand, doubt is related to skepticism and sometimes may be seen as negative. Personally, I agree with the first part of the PT; I believe when you first acquire knowledge you are confident about it because you are still unaware of the controversies and alternatives that come with the knowledge. However, the second part to this PT doesn’t imply that you become paralyzed as you gain more knowledge because you can’t tell right from wrong, or can’t make decisions between different options. If knowing is the expansion of awareness of that we don’t know, what is the nature of knowing? Therefore, in order to address the question, one must assume increasing knowledge leads to increase in doubt and that knowledge and confidence have an inverse relationship thus, when knowledge is low, confidence is high and vice versa. To what extent can we know something with confidence if we are skeptical about it? And, can doubt and confidence exist simultaneously? The AOK of natural sciences is a great lens to look at the PT through and a great way to approach the KQ. This is because, knowledge in the natural sciences is gained through experiments, observations and evidence, which are what most people need to consider knowledge true.A very contrasting AOK to the natural sciences is religious knowledge systems. Accordingly, it is also a great lens to look through when approaching the PT since a majority of the knowledge we gain through it cannot be proven. Interestingly enough, despite whether we are looking through the lens of the natural sciences or religious knowledge systems, knowing with confidence only occurs when we know little and knowing more, doubt increases, is relative and depends on the context. In chemistry, when I come across a fact that has been proven and is backed up with evidence, the more I know these facts, the more confident I am in chemistry as a discipline. For example, as a result of me studying for my chemistry test on oxidation and reduction I relied on my memory to remember all the facts I learnt about oxidation and reduction. Hence, doubts on the test decreased. Thus when I was asked to define oxidation, it was an easy question for me to tackle.On the other hand, with religious belief systems, those who have limited knowledge of different belief systems to their own are highly confident in their own religious beliefs, and as their knowledge on alternative belief systems expands, doubt in their own religious belief grows. When I was younger I believed that humans have inherited sin from Adam and Eve, thus we are innately evil and are in need of forgiveness of sin. I didn’t question any of this and accepted it to be true. With the little I knew I was quite confident about it. However, as I have grown up and gained more knowledge about other religions such as Islam I have begun to question certain beliefs in Christianity. Muslims believe that everyone is born pure and innocent and once they become adolescents they are responsible for their actions and must distinguish between what’s wrong and what’s right. Now, as a teenager, through the deductive reasoning I used from research, the Islamic belief is what I resonate with. Although doubt may be seen as negative in this situation seeing as I began to question my own faith, it did play a role in me acquiring new knowledge of a different belief system. Questions and doubt are not necessarily equivalent but may occasionally have the same outcome. When it comes to understanding complex theories and concepts that involve the universe, the more we know the more we question the knowledge, thus, the more doubt we have. An example of that would be something as simple as atoms. Atoms are the basic building blocks of life, and that seems quite simple to understand but that doesn’t necessarily mean we know what exactly the structure of an atom is. From 1897 till today chemists are still trying to figure out what exactly the structure of an atom is. Over the years over three different models of the atoms have been developed. The model used today is closest to the Bohr model of the atom, and although chemists understand that quarts make up protons and electrons that are both components of an atom, they are still trying to understand what quarts themselves are made of. As a whole, as the need of knowledge increases, so does questioning and doubts which leads to new inventions and theories. The existence of doubt means that the knowledge is imperfect. Doubt therefore helps humans on improving their knowledge by telling them that the knowledge is flawed and pushing the knowledge towards completion. In the natural sciences we can say that the more we know facts the more confident we are seeing as facts are statements that are true and can be proven with evidence. Contrarily, when dealing with theories the more we know the more we doubt because the nature of theories are just ideas to explain things or a set of guiding principles. When it comes to religion, some might use their own religious belief as a lens to create knowledge of alternative belief systems in order to show the flaws of those belief systems, thus reinforcing their confidence in their own belief systems. An example of this is the intersection between Christianity and politics in the US. The Obama administration believes in abortions, and contraceptives. Contrarily, the catholic church doesn’t. When the Obama Administration required that Catholic institutions provide “free” contraceptives to their employees” there were debates. Of course the Obama administration did their research and gained knowledge on why their beliefs about contraceptives were better than those of the Catholics. The Obama Administration believes in contraceptives because it prevents both STD’s and pregnancies. Although they do understand that Catholics don’t believe in sex before marriage thus contraceptives shouldn’t be even necessary, the Obama administration are in sync with reality and know that there are catholics that are sexually active way before marriage. What we can conclude from this is that some aspects of your religion or beliefs are not realistic and thus you doubt those aspects of your religion through learning about others. However, when certain practices in other religions are out of date, you can use your own beliefs to show the weaknesses in other religions thus strengthening yours. You can use learned ideas to dig deeper into the unknown, but you can only do this with curiosity and the root of curiosity is doubt. The problem being addressed in the PT comes with the saying “The more you learn, the less you know”. In general, I would agree that knowledge brings with it the perception of how much more there is it learn, but not necessarily self-doubt. We can look at the PT from a different perspective; him who knows nothing is probably not confident because he doesn’t have the tools or knowledge to confront life. Thus, every time he encounters something new he will have doubts. On the other hand, him who is knowledgeable will use said knowledge to apply it or adapt it to the any given circumstances in order to find a solution or learn more. The PT is really an interpretation of the Dunning Kruger effect. This can be seen as positive cognitive bias where people create their own subjective social reality from their perception of the input. That’s why fools tend to be confident, and smart people tend to doubt themselves.