Human nature possesses a truly interesting characteristic which is the fact
that we strive to understand and rationalize everything we see, at least in general, set a
reason to why things are the way they are. It may be the underlying factor that
separates us from all other species on Earth. We use ways of knowing such as
language, senses, reason, and emotion to do so. It seems natural to want to acquire
knowledge, but in what ways is disagreement essential to validating our own
rationalizations? When viewing knowledge acquisition, it can be seen as the basis of finding validity within a statement where validity is found based upon empirical evidence and research.

​

We can also attribute understanding of this world to skeptical people who are major reasons for our possession of

much of the valid knowledge we have today. Take to thought the scientific method,

which requires a hypothesis. We use the scientific method in order to validate or falsify
our reasoning. A hypothesis can be regarded as an educated conjecture based upon
one’s thoughts. In order to support or falsify this hypothesis, one must undergo different
trials of research and experiments with data collection, ultimately leading up to
information that can either support the hypothesis or disprove it. In my perspective, the
scientific method is a method that can ultimately yield valid knowledge from a conjecture. It can also be regarded as a model of knowledge validation that can be put to use in almost any circumstance.



In essence of this all, us humans strive to understand what is surrounding us, but in order to completely understand, describe, and be able to explain what's around us, we must take further steps to validate the our knowledge claims, in turn, turning them into valid knowledge.