The production of knowledge requires accepting conclusions that go beyond the evidence supporting them. In this essay we will analyze and discuss the fifth ToK question «The production of knowledge requires the acceptance of conclusions that for them go beyond the evidence." We will first talk about ways of accepting knowledge about what it is based on, evidence used to prove theories, and theories that become evidence. Then we will talk about the reason and logic in accepting claims beyond the evidence, whether they apply and how. Finally we will discuss the acceptance of knowledge claims that go beyond evidence in different topics such as History, Natural and Human Sciences and finally Religions and Ethics. Knowledge claims to be endorsed using different types of justifications such as: deduction, empiricism, probability theory, authoritative testimony. In addition to those mentioned above there is abductive reasoning, Occam's razor, induction, logical positivism or pragmatism which we will not analyze here. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayDeduction used especially in the areas of natural and social sciences, takes into account all observed or known factors in a problem and sees with the correlation of each other which is the right theory. With probability theory stating that if all factors and outcomes coincide and make sense, especially if they have a small chance of doing so, the knowledge claim has reduced the chances that they are false or that it is a simple coincidence. Empiricism is the evidence of the senses, which means that all observations are essentially empirical. Using axioms, scientific laws, research, or previous findings, in proving a theory or knowledge claim is semi-empirical. Authoritative testimony is the use of criteria and authorities, in the sense that if specialists on the subject say it must be true or largely truthful, but as with scientific laws and substantially with all human knowledge we are not sure of the correctness of our perception of the world and its "mechanism". Humans are capable of perceiving reality as it is or our image of the world is false or distorted. In that case our scientific laws could all be effective theories, a theory that proves true and works within certain limits but does not represent the reality of the facts, it is just a coincidence due to a bad vision of reality. But is our knowledge a solid basis? Since the dawn of time, human beings have relied on evidence to demonstrate the veracity of a theory, evidence verified by a rigorous scientific method of observation and empirical calculation, this evidence is based on others and this in a pyramid scheme impossible to verify from internal . Some scientists have doubts about the truth of some claims about knowledge, and if the base of the pyramid of knowledge is false we may not prove it or even discover it until the pyramids collapse, which means that at some point we may be completely stuck in the expansion of our scientific knowledge because of our previous mistakes. In more abstract areas of knowledge such as religion, we can ask ourselves whether we need to demonstrate evidence. Unable to use empiricism in this field, it is the main point of atheists against believers, if God exists why cannot we observe him or have any trace or clue of his presence. Now that we have explored ways of approving knowledge claims we can ask whether hypotheses are relevant in different domains of Knowledge. Starting from the domains of reason andlogic. Accepting claims beyond the evidence means agreeing that it is not possible to reasonably and logically explain these hypotheses using any kind of knowledge endorsement or method of proof. Using a new factor in your calculations or reflections to see if it is relevant is the logical thing to do. This therefore means that the answer to the question "can claims beyond evidence be accepted in the domains of reason and logic" is no, yet the most logical thing to do when you are stuck in your search is to accept a new claim. Imagining something, building knowledge on it is the basis of "every" creation of beliefs. And when, in science, deduction, empirical or scientific method is not advanced or sufficient for further research, most scientists make a theory and then prove it with experimentation. It is not possible to always discover new information using the same tools and empirical observation. Very often in human history a fundamental discovery has revolutionized the way we research and interpret the world. In the natural and human sciences, accepting statements beyond evidence is a frequent practice in any theoretical development. Especially in physics, where calculations lead us to incomprehensible results, scientists accept claims beyond the evidence to justify the results. For example, the discovery of black holes in 1915 with Einstein's relativity formulas was just mathematics, scientists deduced that by calculation a gravitational singularity could exist. However, the first empirical detection of a black hole occurred 56 years later, in 1971 thanks to the Uhuru satellite. Calculations are just numbers on paper and are often far from reality, especially in complex and unknown fields such as astrophysics. The international scientific community has made an assumption, believing Einstein's (and colleagues') formulas and accepting the statement that at some point a mass can distort space-time. Making assumptions is also used to simplify calculations when a phenomenon is unpredictable. Physicists create a fictitious set of laws and use them with approximations to simulate it. Ideal gases are the best example of this, since fluid mechanics is still a mystery so it is impossible to predict the displacement of a liquid or gas. Scientists have simplified the mechanism within molecules to create a module that acts similarly to a real molecule or atom.When we talk about assumptions in history we ask whether they are possible since the past should not be something unknown. The main weakness of history is its fallibility, and traces of the past are not strongly representative of reality and can be falsified for unknown purposes. The texts that have survived into history often come from the leading society of the time, others have traces destroyed or not well preserved (Example: destruction of books and works of art by the Nazi government, because they were not adequate to their ideals). History is also all about points of view, and since history is written by human beings subject to emotions, they may interfere with the writer's objectivity. We could take the example of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which from the American point of view was a surprise attack, without honor and respect. From the Japanese point of view it was the last available choice for the survival of the empire. Given the great scarcity of raw materials and oil, Japan had no choice but to attack the United States in order to support their wars in Asia, especially in China. But from our modern perspective we now know that the attack on Pearl Harbor was foreseen by President Roosevelt, and that the absence of the three aircraft carriers could not have been a coincidence.).