As I understand it, "unselfishness" refers to objectivity and the pursuit of valueless knowledge. When we are selfless, we detach ourselves from prejudices and become more neutral and open-minded, which helps us acquire more reliable knowledge. In this statement, the “pursuit of knowledge” means the acquisition and production of knowledge. Knowledge itself can be best described in Plato's words as justified true belief, which can be both theoretical and practical. Practical knowledge is acquired through everyday practical experiences, such as riding a bicycle, while theoretical knowledge is the knowledge of why something is true and requires explanation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay “Selflessness” is related to all aspects of justified true belief. Impartiality in the truth means being interested only in the truth itself and refraining from jumping to conclusions on any basis. Reliable knowledge can be gained by establishing beliefs by objectively accepting a statement as true by going beyond empirical data. Regarding neutrality in justification, the right status of a person's beliefs regarding knowledge must be determined in such a way that it is not influenced by external factors. However, selflessness implies not only a detachment from political and social influences, but also the lack of emotions, such as curiosity, passion and enthusiasm. Being completely disinterested can hinder a person's ability to ask questions, observe, and actively engage in research when pursuing knowledge. This makes it extremely difficult to remain neutral and ignore the underlying assumptions and implications. To examine the mentioned statement, we must ask the question whether and in what ways value neutrality is desirable and achievable. I will explore the connection between epistemic and contextual values ​​and the acquisition and creation of knowledge in the natural sciences and art. We are creatures who encounter events from one angle. An individual's point of view is always affected by his or her personal circumstances, language, culture, and the physical conditions in which the knowledge claim is made. In my opinion, the ideal would be to refrain from biased behavior to provide knowledge in its most accurate form, but this is unachievable. Complete detachment would mean avoiding certain desirable values ​​such as perseverance and simplicity. Therefore, the degree of value neutrality must have a reasonable limit. Value neutrality in science refers to not influencing claims, methods, and results by particular perspectives, value commitments, community biases, or personal interests. Knowledge acquisition should be based solely on logical reasoning and empirical data, as logical empiricism says. Epistemic values ​​are those that attach to cognitive achievements such as justified beliefs and understanding. They include predictive accuracy, scope, unification, explanatory power, simplicity, and consistency with other accepted theories. Contextual values, on the other hand, are moral, personal, social, political and cultural values.Objectivity, obtained by the detachment of the two, characterizes science as an AOK; we can go so far as to say that it faithfully describes the facts in the absence of normative commitments and personal prejudices. Science aims to use value neutrality strongly enough to produce valuable knowledge, but weakly enough so that it is accessible. To pursue knowledge, scientists must explore events detached from their personal perspective and arrive at an assertion that remains constant. This concept of describing global phenomena independently of perspectives through the engagement of epistemic values ​​is desirable because it provides a simpler and more unified representation of the world, aids in the resolution of disagreements, and allows for valuable predictions to be offered. Scientists can explain the world and our image of it using theories. The universal law of gravitation, first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton, is a perfect example, as it is based on numerous observations that logically explain the pulling force exerted on any two objects. The theory is formulated with epistemic values ​​because it is simplistic, consistent and supported by reliable evidence which led to the formula F = G × [(m1m2)/(r)^2]. It directly demonstrates the relationship between the force exerted and the mass and distance between the two bodies, making predictions possible and accurate. The theory is coherent and meaningful because it is consistent with other currently accepted relevant theories and its consequences extend beyond the data it is required to explain. Nevertheless, our ability to present facts, while highly desirable, depends on whether the claims we make can be established empirically without ambiguity. Using scientific methods such as carrying out observations, measurements, and experiments to collect data and obtain sufficient evidence to support stated scientific claims is essential to gaining knowledge and is based on epistemic values. This leads us to argue that epistemic values ​​are desirable for obtaining justified true beliefs. Thomas Kuhn, a well-known philosopher of science, asserts that epistemic values ​​define the standards for evaluating theory, which characterize the scientific approach as a whole and prove their benefit in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge that is valueless and relies entirely on the collection of evidence, evaluation, and acceptance of scientific theories may, however, be underdetermined by the evidence. This means that the available evidence is insufficient to identify what belief a person should have about that evidence. This usually leads to the formation of two or more competing theories. It is up to scientists to decide how much evidentiary support is necessary to accept a theory as true. This decision-making is subjective and highly dependent on individual morality, demonstrating the use of contextual values ​​in the acceptance of scientific theory. To understand this, we can take the example of the biologist Nikolai Vavilov in the Soviet Union, sentenced to death because of his theories on genetic inheritance, which did not conform to Marxist-Leninist ideology. It was a time when scientific research and principles were controlled by political interests, which led to tragic epistemic effects throughout the 20th century. This goes against the prescribed statement because it presents the search for knowledge as always dependent on other factors. By referring to another.