Emotion is consistently evoked when knowledge is acquired. The two main emotions that will be explored are confidence and doubt. The key term confidence is an emotion of being very certain, with a solid, concrete and definite understanding towards the topic. Contrastingly, doubt is a form of confusion and uncertainty about the knowledge or idea. Ultimately, one’s definition of confidence and doubt may be influenced by the knowledge one has gained. How do we measure the amount of knowledge we know? Knowing ‘little’ means one possess a small amount of knowledge, leading to a lack of exposure to more complex and detailed ideas. The main subject of this knowledge question is ‘we’ and this could also be stated as people who use knowledge on a daily basis. Therefore ‘we’ would mean the general public. The main claim is that ‘we’ become less confident and more doubtful as we gain more knowledge. As we gain more knowledge, ‘we’ realize how much of the world we did not know. Confidence associates with ignorance of the deeper meaning behind the ideas. This essay would explore the extent to how emotions, such as confidence and doubt, are influenced by how much knowledge one has acquired, using real-life situations from the two areas of knowledge – Natural Sciences and History. This forms the final knowledge question: “To what extent are our emotional response affected by the amount of knowledge acquired?” How does exposure to more knowledge lead to doubt? First of all, Natural Sciences is a theoretical study made by scientists through the manipulation of the scientific method or theories to research about the universe. The objectivity of Natural Science comes from the fact that it majorly consists of shared knowledge from scientists, meaning that ‘we’ all acknowledge the piece of knowledge. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning, to construct a broad idea of a hypothesis from a particular observation via sense perception and imagination, and subsequently use deductive reasoning, which is a series of logical steps to formulate a conclusion by experimentation with supporting data.An example of a real-life situation would be the particle theory that forms the basis of Chemistry. Solids are denser than the liquid due to the fact that the particles are assembled in a relatively tighter space. In theory, deductive reasoning tells us that ice, which is a solid, must be denser than water. However, in real life, ice is less dense than water. Can we ever be certain about a theory or law? This is one of the many theories that have certain exceptions that make the scientific theories less valid to the world. Hypothesis by inductive reasoning can also be a flaw, as it is true under the assumption that the same specific observation would recur, but the validity and the practicality of the hypothesis may also change over time as the world advances. The confidence is derived from unawareness and just looking at a section of a drawing instead of the whole piece itself. By broadening the mind and the exposure to the various exceptions, it allows ‘us’ to question the validity of each theory, and thus lead to confusion. But is the main claim also true for all knowledge in Natural Sciences? Within an area of knowledge, there are branches of different academic disciplines, and within an academic discipline, there are various topics that are covered. Although natural sciences are relatively theoretical, the longer the theory persists any objections by other scientists, the more reliable the knowledge becomes. This will be known for being shared knowledge amongst ‘us’. Knowledge can also be produced quantitatively and qualitatively. It is a knowledge claim that by reacting acids with bases, it will produce a neutral solution, as a result of neutralization. This piece of knowledge is not enough to convince us to be certain and confident about the topic. Quantitative measurements of the reaction could give solid evidence of this neutralization effect, such as measuring the pH level of the solutions using pH probes, and acid-base titration to physically see the changes in pH levels. This will become personal knowledge when the experiments are carried out by one and require one’s sense perception throughout the process. Quantitative and qualitative measurements used in Chemistry allow further evidence to be collected to justify the theories and statements, thus allows us to become more confident about the knowledge claim. Therefore, the counterclaim states that the more we know, the more supportive evidence there is to verify and confirm the accuracy of the knowledge so ‘we’ understand the knowledge and doubt gradually dissipates. Nevertheless, there are other factors that can spark an impact on the emotional response, such as the difficulty of producing or understanding the knowledge. The title makes it seem as though doubt only arises when we have more knowledge. But in fact, doubt can exist anywhere, even with little knowledge. Another area of knowledge is History, which is also an area of academic discipline, which explores the past events, through the ways of knowing, memory, imagination, sense perception, reasoning and possibly faith. An example would be the Nanjing Massacre. It is shared knowledge that during the Second World War, the Japanese army invaded Nanjing, and brutally killed the lives of more than hundred thousands of Chinese citizens. The numbers, such as the number of casualties, often determines the extent, to which an event becomes significant in history. If more about this were to be researched, they would encounter the problem where the two countries are claiming contrasting facts. Japan reports that they have only caused 20,000 to 200,000, whereas China claims the number to be massively larger (Hess and Wasserstrom, 2010).These diverged estimations highlight the inaccuracy of data caused by bias, boundaries of language (which is one of the ways of knowing). What ways of knowing associated with doubt? Memory is an unreliable method as it is highly personal and biases would be inevitable. There is also exploitation of evidence by the authorities that do not speak the truth, and also the deterioration in primary evidence, such as decreasing number of war veterans or survivors. As you know more, you start to question more, therefore, doubt increases. This happens because as we know little, we are ignorant about these controversies and uncertainties in the knowledge, that we become confident. As we know more, it unravels these problems and is exposed to controversial knowledge claims and theories that challenge the knowledge that we have. But is doubt a negative thing? Doubt can be useful when gaining knowledge, so we are not blinded by the fact and approach the knowledge with scepticism. As stated, doubt is ubiquitous in History, and historical knowledge is open to personal interpretation to decide if it is the truth or not. This leads us to another knowledge question – does History ever tell us the truth? Knowledge claims in history are like a bridge to the future, historical facts and evidence can be built up and allow us to learn from the past, and so we do not repeat those mistakes again. By looking at past events, it does give an idea of what’s right or immoral, but it is up to personal interpretation to decide whether it is the truth or not.One example is the dangers of nuclear power plants. When we lack information about them, ‘we’ are not certain about the specifics – what makes them dangerous and what are the deadly consequences? History gives us an insight into the nuclear power plants, especially the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima Nuclear disaster in 2011(Touran, n.d.). Both events give a sense of the reality of nuclear disasters, and the fact that both places are now deadly for inhabitants for a long time, it teaches us more about the dangers, that we become more certain and confident about the consequences of nuclear disasters. The vague idea may be due to using instinct as a way of knowing, but as extra knowledge is presented, the deductive reasoning could be used to logically process it in the mind. History proves that more knowledge means a stronger basis and a clearer view of the topic. However, knowledge does not necessarily equal to the understanding of the topic. Rather than an amount, a depth of knowledge can give a broader range of opinions and facts can deepen our understanding towards the subject. A better understanding develops an emotional response to satisfaction, which relates to emotions of confidence.To conclude, there are different views on the main claim, that ‘we’ are confident when we know little, and ‘we’ become doubtful when we know more knowledge. If doubt is omnipresent in all areas of knowledge, is certainty in understanding ever possible? In the theoretical aspect of Natural science, the more you know, the more you realized about the flaws of theories and the hidden parts of the universe that are yet to be discovered by scientists. The physical side of Natural science stated that experiments are another form of knowledge that can be produced and actual numbers can become additional evidence and thus make one more confident about a certain topic. History also claims that doubt increases as you question the reliability of knowledge claims, but historical knowledge can also be a building block of one’s concrete understanding. But the truth is, it is difficult to answer the knowledge question, as it depends on each and every person to measure how ‘confident’ or ‘doubtful’ they are and to measure if they have ‘little’ or ‘more’ knowledge.