In the process of acquiring knowledge, knowers often follow a general framework that can be used to obtain incontrovertible facts. While it may seem that ambiguity in knowledge is undesirable, it is certainly ubiquitous. This raises the questions: why does ambiguity arise and, ultimately, how does it affect the quality of knowledge? Incontrovertible facts refer to a statement based on empirical evidence. In general, acceptance or non-acceptance of ambiguity largely depends on the AOK concerned, given its purpose and methodology. The essay will examine the overestimation of incontrovertible facts regarding 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In NS, incontrovertible facts must be established for the AOK to provide a reliable description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena. Since NS deals with physical reality that is objective and exists beyond human experience, constructed knowledge aims to be independent of an individual's emotions and, therefore, free from bias. For knowledge in the NS to be considered valid, it is important that scientists develop a standardized and reliable method of collecting data for use in experimentation, as captured by direct observation or by instruments whose accuracy has significantly improved over the years. The use of certainty in gathering empirical evidence and inductive reasoning through repeated experiments allows scientific theories to be justifiable. In the case of NS, there is an urgent need for scientific rigor and facts in theory building to eliminate as much bias as possible. This happens especially when individuals perceive and interpret reality differently. It is therefore pertinent to consider the method used to derive the fact in question. Often observed in NS, the use of testing, peer review, repeatability, and modification can lead to the accuracy of the knowledge gained. In 1928, the discovery of penicillin's antibiotic properties was made after observing Staphylococcus bacteria inside a Petri dish. Dr. Alexander Fleming had put forward the hypothesis that there could be a causal relationship between the substances produced by mold and its potential antibiotic properties. His findings were followed by a period of strenuous research in which further testing and peer review supported the facts gained to prove his theory. The succession of scientific tests conducted by others led to the formation of new knowledge: the use of penicillin in the treatment of bacterial infections. Peer review, in this case, had allowed for a more in-depth and focused study of the theory. The claim that penicillin mold growth could be harnessed to fight infectious diseases had also been supported by myriad cases, following the first in 1942. Repeatability had aided the claim to be true. Therefore, efforts to disprove theory, and the failure to do so when data do not confirm existing theory, allow us to establish confidence in such knowledge where established incontrovertible facts can be used for medicinal purposes. Establishing a reliable understanding of the properties 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 the death of the recipient. Inductive reasoning in hypothesis evaluation through verification andfalsification allowed the results to be verifiable and repeatable. Such incontrovertible facts can also serve as a basis from which new knowledge can be derived. Since NS involves the study of axiomatics, incontrovertible facts are needed and its importance cannot be overestimated. On the other hand, the natural sciences have areas of ambiguity. As for how the scientific method is used to remove subjective influences, the claims are questionable when considering the validity of how the facts are obtained. Errors are often found when we rely solely on sensory perception to collect empirical data. This is evident in the study of ecosystems where square sampling is often used to derive a posteriori knowledge. In field data sampling, it is implausible for scientists to survey an entire area: only small sections are taken and used as representations of the larger population. . As a result, the transects and quadrants used to collect quantitative data may not represent an accurate account of the actual population, especially when the results may be a result of the spatial arrangement of the organism. Quantitative data collection is also prone to technological errors, as seen in underwater visual sampling techniques used to estimate coral reef communities. Modern techniques often using underwater visual census (UVC) have errors in estimating survey area, fish identification, density, and length. Collecting cognitive data on coral reef fish assemblages is not an accurate method of data collection, as different individuals interpret their surroundings differently. However, while sensory perception here proves unreliable in the acquisition and analysis of empirical data, the knowledge gathered is nevertheless valid and applied, without there being any need for incontrovertible 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 uncertainty of knowledge at hand, they are immediately confronted by rejecting the hypothesis. While the way we collect data isn't foolproof, it's still the best. The knowledge is, therefore, still considered valid. Can we accept knowledge if it is not rigorous? The purpose of the Arts, however, is to communicate ideas through a means of expression. To understand the meaning of a work of art it is necessary to apply the artistic intention and the socio-political context in which the work was created. These facts are generally agreed upon. Contextualism suggests that a work of art should always be understood in its context or setting and emphasizes that the relationship between the artist and his work must be understood if the work itself is to be appreciated. It can be said that any interpretation of a work of art should be based on incontrovertible facts regarding the origin of the work of art. Such knowledge and appreciation of it can, therefore, enrich the meaning of a work of art. In paying attention to context, the underlying context should not be repeated through reading the work but, through emotion and deductive reason, held to better appreciate the work. This happens especially when works of art have an obscure meaning, resulting in conflicting interpretations. The study of the artists' intentions highlights the proactive attitude towards how they had planned to execute a work. For example, when compiling an anthology of literary texts surrounding a particular central theme, editors.