“Doubt is the key to knowledge” (Persian Proverb). To what extent is this true in two areas of knowledge?
The essence of the Q: this is a deceptively simple question and may lead you into quite a technical discussion of philosophical scepticism - this is fine if you're well-versed in the miasma of Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' and Hume's theory of casuation, for instance, but if not, then try to keep things simple. First of all, reflect on the associations of 'key': it's a powerful metaphor for knowledge. Next, think carefully about 'doubt' - what is the consequence of not being over-hasty in believing what you see and what you're told? Is doubt a method or a state of mind? Is it active or passive? Doubting must surely be linked to questioning and thereby curiosity, both of which are great ways of living. And yet life might become extremely intense and you might become a social pariah if you question everyone and everything! So then place the question in the context of different AoKs and think about how doubt might yield or hinder knowledge in these fields. At some point in your reflections, you'll have to consider how doubt helps or hinders you into getting to the truth of things; that is, gives you subjective or objective knowledge, certainty. You may also wish to compare the Persian proverb with Socrates' assertion that one can only know that one doesn't really know much - for those of you with a philosophical background, your discussion could develop into an exploration of the effectiveness of the method of dialectic.
Knowledge issues: to what extent is doubt a methodological necessity in the Sciences? What is the relationship between doubt and truth? How far is doubt a reliable gauge for knowing something? In what ways does doubt involve rational thinking? What part does perception and emotion play in doubt? Is anything certain? How far can we justify the urge to question or doubt everything? What is the relationship between doubt and evidence?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Perhaps the easiest of the AoKs to choose for this Q since doubt is built into the scientific method. Sometimes we have to doubt the efficacy (or even the ethics) of the natural sciences. Think of the side effects of many of the inventions based on science and technology.
Human Sciences: You could discuss the efficacy of qualitative and quantitive data or statistics that human scientists produce to support their theories.
Mathematics: Surely no place for doubt here. Those of you well-versed in maths and geometry will know, however, that doubt played a key part in the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry which is essential for navigating the planet as well as for space travel.
Arts: This would be a good contrast to the Natural Sciences. Artistic doubt, you might argue, manifests itself in a dissatisfaction with the world which is the springboard for creativity. We also doubt judgments about art works which has great implications on the nature of artistic knowledge.
History: What does historical doubt look like? Is it the same as denial? For example, we know about people who deny the holocaust ever happened (if you use this example, please avoid the cliches!), but you'd need to explain how and why this state of affairs might arise. On what grounds might you doubt a historian's interpretation of a particular period of history?
Ethics: If you believe that there are no absolute ethical principles, then Ethics is fraught with doubts. On the other hand, if you believe in God as the giver of morals, does this mean that you'll be free from doubt? There are as many examples in sacred books as well as in the lives of non-believers that suggest doubt often plagues us in situations of moral extremity: we do not always know what is the right thing to do - theories and guidelines might help to clarify things, but may not help to make a decision.
