Do we truly know anything at all?

When we peel back the layers of our knowledge, we uncover that everything is based on assumptions. Are we standing on solid ground, or is it merely an illusion?

In our relentless pursuit of knowledge, we’ve made astonishing strides, charting the unknown and illuminating the mysteries of our universe. Yet, a fundamental question looms over our intellectual endeavors: Do we truly know anything at all? At first glance, the answer might seem obvious. We trust in the power of science, in the reliability of mathematics, and in the truths that our senses convey to us daily. But as we peel back the layers of our understanding, we uncover a disquieting reality—everything we "know" is built upon assumptions. And these assumptions, no matter how carefully constructed, are still just that: assumptions.

Every fact, every theory, and every law that governs our world is underpinned by a framework of beliefs and assumptions. The scientific method, which has driven so much of our progress, rests on the belief that the universe operates according to consistent and observable laws. This belief has enabled us to predict outcomes, design experiments, and develop technologies that transform our world. However, this bedrock is not as solid as we might hope.

Epistemological nihilism—a perspective that questions the possibility of obtaining absolute knowledge—casts a long shadow over our understanding of the world. According to this view, no matter how refined our theories or how precise our measurements, we can never be entirely sure that what we know is true. Every scientific theory, no matter how robust, is always provisional, subject to revision or rejection in light of new evidence. The foundation of our knowledge is woven from threads of assumption.

When we say we "know" something, what we are truly saying is that we accept a certain set of premises as true. These premises are the invisible scaffolding upon which the edifice of human knowledge is built. Take, for instance, the laws of mathematics. We assume that numbers behave in predictable ways, that the rules governing arithmetic operations remain consistent across all contexts. This assumption underpins everything from basic counting to the most complex algorithms used in artificial intelligence. Yet, the very nature of these assumptions is rarely scrutinized.

We rarely ask ourselves why 2 + 2 equals 4, beyond simply accepting it as an axiomatic truth. This acceptance is based on the assumption that the universe is logical, that it follows a set of principles that can be understood and quantified. However, what if these assumptions were to fail us? What if the underlying logic that governs our mathematical truths were to break down in some unforeseen way? Such a scenario might seem far-fetched, but it underscores a crucial point: our knowledge, no matter how robust, is contingent. It is dependent on the continued validity of the assumptions we have made. In this sense, all knowledge is provisional. It is subject to revision, to refinement, and, in some cases, to complete overhaul when our assumptions no longer hold true.

Consider, for example, the formula for the area of a triangle. This equation is taught as an absolute truth in schools, but under extreme conditions, it may not hold as universally as we assume. In regions with intense gravitational forces—such as near a black hole or within a strong gravitational field—Einstein’s theory of general relativity reveals that space and time themselves are warped. As a result, if we were to measure the area of a perfect mountain’s cross-section from the edge to the peak, the rules of simple Euclidean geometry would no longer apply. In such scenarios, classical geometric principles become insufficient, and a more complex understanding involving differential geometry and the curvature of spacetime is required. Consequently, the resulting calculations based on classical geometry could be misleading or incorrect.

The fragility of our knowledge becomes even more apparent when we consider the history of science. Throughout the centuries, many ideas that were once considered irrefutable truths have been overturned. The geocentric model of the universe, for instance, was accepted for millennia before being supplanted by the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus. Similarly, Newtonian physics, which was once seen as the ultimate description of the natural world, was eventually superseded by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Yet, every generation, despite witnessing such paradigm shifts, leaves this world convinced that they have finally grasped the truth. And naturally, we assume that our generation is the one that has finally gotten it right—because of course, this time we know the truth, don’t we?

This pattern of paradigm shifts reveals a fundamental characteristic of our knowledge: it is always evolving. What we know today may be proven wrong tomorrow. The assumptions we hold dear may be shown to be flawed or incomplete. This ever-changing nature of knowledge highlights the precariousness of our understanding. It forces us to confront the possibility that we may never reach a point of absolute certainty, that our quest for truth may be an endless journey with no final destination.

In a world where everything is built on shifting sands, the only constant seems to be uncertainty itself. This realization can be unsettling, even paralyzing. If we can never be sure of anything, how can we navigate our lives, make decisions, or build a future? Yet, despite this inherent uncertainty, we continue to seek knowledge. We continue to build theories, conduct experiments, and develop technologies, all based on the assumptions we have made about the world. This drive to know, to understand, is one of the defining features of the human condition. It is what has propelled us from the caves to the stars, from the discovery of fire to the development of quantum computers.

But in our pursuit of knowledge, we must remain mindful of the limitations of our assumptions. We must acknowledge that our understanding is not infallible, that it is always subject to revision in light of new evidence. This awareness of the provisional nature of our knowledge should not be seen as a weakness. On the contrary, it is a strength. It encourages us to remain open-minded, to question our assumptions, and to be willing to change our views when new evidence arises. It fosters a spirit of inquiry, a willingness to explore new ideas and to push the boundaries of what we think we know.

Moreover, the recognition that our knowledge is built on assumptions forces us to adopt a more humble approach to our intellectual endeavors. It reminds us that, no matter how much we learn, there is always more to discover. This humility is crucial in a world where the pace of scientific and technological advancement is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. As we push the frontiers of knowledge, we must do so with the understanding that our current theories and models are not the final word. They are simply the best approximations we have, given our current level of understanding.

Embracing this uncertainty can be liberating. It frees us from the tyranny of dogma, encourages intellectual humility, and opens the door to endless possibilities. If we accept that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, we are compelled to remain curious, to question, to explore, and to challenge the status quo.