"Provability is a weaker concept than truth." suggests that provability, in other words proving a theory with evidence is not necessarily better than truth which, in the case of science, establishes that the conclusions of scientists or philosophers or any expert in science go beyond the evidence provided. In this essay, the main focus would be on paradigm shift, evidence, and knowledge affirmation. The basic thesis of the essay is that people are inclined to employ simple means to explain and justify their theories, beliefs and experiences, and it is often difficult for others to realize that their perception of order and tests can be completely different from the rest. truth. So notions of blind faith would be explored along with the contradiction between religion and science. This would be done by analyzing ways of knowing; faith and how atheist claims suggest that people with religious beliefs run away from facts and prefer to live in a fairy tale. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The story of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is one example where the evidence was wildly different from the truth. Since the question states “beyond the evidence for them,” it is essential to contextualize that evidence is a type of evidence that provides concrete data to support an idea. But what happens when the evidence provided goes beyond previous knowledge of the product? The location of the legendary place created doubts among the people as there was a lack of evidence. Therefore knowledge production has been limited due to lack of evidence and a paradigm shift has occurred due to new evidence. The proximity of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Hanging Garden of Babylon, has remained an immense mystery. Archaeologists have failed to find traces of Babylon, which has led people to doubt its existence. However, after 18 years of in-depth studies, an archaeologist from the University of Oxford, Stephanie Dalley, discovered that the garden was built by the Assyrians located in northern Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and it was thought that the obsolete position was in the south, created by the enemies of the Assyrians - by the Babylonians. Recently, the British academic provided textual evidence to show that the garden was instead created in Nineveh, 300 miles from Babylon. Before Dr. Stephanie there was not a single archaeologist who risked his life to travel to Mosul to find evidence of the location of the Garden. One of the above accounts claims that it was created by King Nebuchadnezzar, 600 years before the birth of Christ. However, in the writings of the time, none of them mentioned any garden, so archaeologists before Dr. Stephanie simply assumed that it was created by the Babylonians in Babylon. Contemporary findings suggest that what everyone thought about the precise location of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was wrong, but before Dr. Stephanie's excavations and search for new evidence, the location which is the conclusion made by previous historians and archaeologists was false and they drew conclusions without having clear evidence to support their conjecture. To understand the underlying thesis in more detail, it is important to understand what knowledge production is and how it is accepted without evidence. According to Plato, knowledge is defined as “true and justified belief”. A modern definition of knowledge is "the ideas or understandings held by an entity that are used to take effective actions to achieve the entity's goals." If we compare both definitions, the differences suggest that the definition of knowledgehas changed in recent years. Likewise, the way we gather evidence has also changed, and scientists do not conclude their theories with the absence of evidence, and the equipment used to gain knowledge has also changed. Many years ago, experts and philosophers relied heavily on “word of mouth” when it came to carrying out investigations, however, today, scientific knowledge is obtained differently. Evidence is key to having concrete proof, and the two areas of knowledge of natural sciences and humanities would be explored, and the avenue of knowledge explored is reasoning. Reasoning allows humans to have stable mental states, because without reasoning about aspects of our lives, we will enter a state of abyss where doubt heavily controls us. “God Is Not Great”, a book by Christopher Hitchens, explores the concept of faith in God. Along with the saying “blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in spite of the evidence”. by Richard Dawkins Atheism has gained greater prominence as these dogmatic statements allow readers to question the validity of religion. The human sciences and reason prove these dogmatic claims, as it could be argued that people who have faith in religion often ignore facts and evidence, and some argue that they live in a fantasy world detached from reality. Regardless of our beliefs about God, Allah, etc., we believe in things that are impossible to prove and are obligated to believe in their reliability. Faith is like undergoing critical surgery, you have no evidence for safe surgery; if the procedure goes well. Likewise, placing faith in Christ or Allah or whatever religion others believe in, as human beings we must rely on evidence such as the Quran. This also implies that in religion we infer from abstract evidence given to us and reach conclusions that go beyond the evidence. On the other hand, the human sciences can also be considered on a par with religion. As Darwin states, “even science requires faith before it can have reasons.” This suggests that science and religion share a similar epistemological status. In fact, religion is a type of knowledge and can cooperate with science and replace it. Although religions do not include evidence such as the testimony of God, myriads of people have faith in their religion. Undoubtedly science and religion are different, but they are thought of and contextualized in completely different ways. The main difference is that science has the ability to enable rational thought; where notions can be analyzed through investigations and tests. In physics there is a branch of study called theoretical physics which includes the investigation of concepts and theories that do not require concrete evidence or conclusions. If we consider string theory, is it questionable whether string theory is actually a science or a philosophical stance? This has been a long debate between physicists and philosophers. recently at the University of Munich in Germany a meeting was held with experts and it was considered whether string theory is considered science. From now on, “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it does not need to be tested experimentally.” This supported the popularity of theoretical physics because for a scientific theory to be valid there must be an experiment which Karl Popper in the 1930s put as scientific experiments necessary to pass through falsificationism that no number or any other variety can certify the scientific theory. Therefore, knowledge matures and evolves through presumptions and refutations. Human science involves patterns and patterns in this branch of science are.