In the process of acquiring knowledge, knowers often follow an overall framework that can be used to obtain indisputable facts. Although ambiguity in knowledge may seem undesirable, it is certainly pervasive. This raises questions: why does ambiguity arise and, ultimately, how does it affect the quality of knowledge? Hard facts refer to a claim based on empirical evidence. Overall, the acceptance or non-acceptance of ambiguity depends largely on the AOK concerned, taking into account its objective and methodology. The essay will focus on the overestimation of indisputable facts with regard to two areas of knowledge (AOK): the natural sciences (NS) and the arts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayIn Nova Scotia, it is necessary to establish indisputable facts for the AOK to provide a description, prediction and reliable understanding of natural phenomena. Because NS deals with a physical reality that is objective and exists beyond human experience, the knowledge constructed aims to be independent of an individual's emotions and therefore free from bias. For knowledge in Nova Scotia to be considered valid, it is important that scientists design a standardized and reliable method of collecting data that is used in experimentation - as captured by direct observation or by instruments whose precision has improved considerably over the years. The use of certainty in gathering empirical evidence and inductive reasoning through repeated experiments helps justify scientific theories. In the case of Nova Scotia, there is an urgent need for scientific rigor and evidence-based theory building to eliminate as much bias as possible. This is particularly the case when individuals perceive and interpret reality differently. It is therefore pertinent to consider the method that was used to derive the fact in question. Often seen in Nova Scotia, the use of testing, peer review, repeatability and modification can lead to the accuracy of acquired knowledge. In 1928, the discovery of penicillin with antibiotic properties was made after observing Staphylococcus bacteria in a petri dish. Dr. Alexander Fleming had hypothesized that there might be a causal relationship between the substances produced by mold and its potential antibiotic properties. His findings were followed by a period of intense research during which additional testing and peer review supported the acquired facts to prove his theory. The succession of scientific tests carried out by others resulted in the formation of new knowledge: the use of penicillin in the treatment of bacterial infections. Peer review, in this case, allowed for a more in-depth and focused study of the theory. The claim that the growth of penicillin mold could be exploited to combat infectious diseases has also been supported by a myriad of cases, following the very first in 1942. The repeatability had reinforced the statement as true. Therefore, efforts to disprove the theory, and the failure to do so when the data does not support the already existing theory, allows us to establish faith in such knowledge where the established indisputable facts can be used for purposes medical purposes. Establish a reliable understanding ofproperties of penicillin is of paramount importance. Ambiguity in the form of multiple beliefs cannot be tolerated because, as in the case of medicine, it could lead to undesirable consequences such as death of the recipient. Inductive reasoning in hypothesis evaluation through verification and falsification resulted in testable and reproducible results. Such indisputable facts can also serve as a foundation on which new knowledge can be derived. Since NS involves the study of axiomatics, indisputable facts are needed and its importance is not overestimated. On the other hand, the natural sciences have areas of ambiguity. As much as the scientific method is used to eliminate subjective influences, the claims are defensible when considering the validity of how the facts are obtained. Errors are often found when we rely solely on sensory perception to gather empirical data. This is seen in the study of ecosystems where quadrat sampling is often used to derive knowledge a posteriori. When sampling field data, it is not plausible for scientists to study an entire area - Only small sections are taken and used as representations of the larger population. . As a result, transects and quadrats used to collect quantitative data may not be an accurate account of the true population, particularly when results may result from the spatial arrangement of organisms. Quantitative data collection is also prone to technological errors, as demonstrated by underwater visual sampling techniques used to estimate coral reef communities. Modern techniques often using underwater visual census (UVC) have made it possible to estimate errors in survey area, fish identification, density and length. Collecting cognitive data on reef fish assemblages is not an accurate method of data collection because different individuals interpret their environments differently. However, even if sensory perception here proves unreliable in the acquisition and analysis of empirical data, the knowledge gathered remains valid and applied, leaving no need for indisputable facts. However, where errors in systematic observation cannot be avoided, it is important that scientists strive to eliminate as many methodological errors as possible. When scientists consider the questionable nature of the available knowledge, they immediately respond by rejecting the hypothesis. Even though the way we collect data is not foolproof, it is still the best way. Knowledge is therefore always considered valid. Can we accept knowledge if it is not rigorous? The purpose of the arts, on the other hand, is to communicate ideas through a medium of expression. In order to understand the meaning of a work of art, one must apply the artistic intention and socio-political context in which the work was created. These facts are generally recognized. Contextualism suggests that a work of art must always be understood within its context or setting and emphasizes the relationship between the artist and their work to be understood if one were to appreciate the work itself . It can be said that any interpretation of a work of art must be based on indisputable facts regarding the origins of the work of art. Such knowledge and appreciation of it can therefore enrich the meaning of a work of art. By paying attention to context, the background context should not.