两个伟大的历史人物，Michel De Montaigne任éÂ笛卡尔哲学的方法，通过使用试图理解怀疑的问题是否会导致知识。蒙田，首先，开始怀疑有没有知识的人已经获得[ 1 ]，而笛卡尔的怀疑一切的事物在我们周围的世界的存在，这就是他的名言“我思考，所以我是[ 2 ]。人们可以将知识定义为“熟悉、认识或理解，通过经验或研究”[ 3 ]或其他“信仰”的一个子类别[ 4 ]和怀疑，作为一个扩展的检讨，已初步说明。很明显，这两个概念之间有一个相关性，但问题出现时，一个试图建立这两个值之间的联系。一个生动的个案例子是苏格拉底的故事时，得知在特尔斐神谕所说，他是Athens最聪明的人。而不是接受这个标题，他试图找到真相，怀疑这一声明，并试图证明，这一概念所表达的甲骨文是假的。基于他的怀疑，他遵循归纳推理，问别人什么是值得在生活中，没有人给他一个明确的答案。因此，他得出的结论是，他可能是最聪明的人他没有假装他不。移动到一个更广泛的规模，一个人可以试图确定是否怀疑是一个关键的知识，通过检查两个特定领域的知识，历史和数学和现实生活中的情况下，怀疑已导致的认识和理解。
首先，历史是一个怀疑被认为是知识的关键领域之一。如果不怀疑的话，那么怀疑主义，因为它是该地区的人们从过去的资源获得知识。由于这些资源往往是有偏见的，它是通过怀疑，人们可以评估他们所获得的知识来源。有人可能会认为，这不属于“知识”这个词的定义，因为没有信仰。当然，这种说法是不可能的立场，因为信仰可能是设置后的价值和历史资源的背景已经建立。此外，当人们在历史上寻找真理时，他们试图把所有的资源和他们的所有不同的解释，以得出一个结论，简单地通过使用推理。大多数时候，当看着历史事实，推理来在真理测试的形式。尽管事实上有三种类型的真实性测试，连贯性、语用性和对应性，只有其中的两个可以被用来确定历史资源的有效性。首先，连贯性测试，它要求你认为什么样的信息资源为你提供和基于什么你已经知道你得出一个结论。这可能意味着你在索赔本身的问题，考虑为什么一个历史事实可以有一个以上的不同的解释，但也考虑可能的优势，该论点有。除了连贯性测试外，对应测试可以有效地使用，这意味着在整个历史上寻找真理的人将“去检查”[ 5 ]他的资源的有效性。即使这是相当困难的，一个可以实际使用这个测试相结合的资源的信息与其他发生在世界上发生在那个时期，由别人的言论，甚至看的语言和语气来描述历史事实。
Two great historical figures, Michel De Montaigne and RenéÂ Descartes, through the use of philosophical approaches have tried to comprehend the issue of doubt and whether it can lead to knowledge. Montaigne, first of all, began by doubting that there is anything certain in knowledge that people have acquired  , while Descartes doubted everything that exists in the world around us and this is how his quote “I think, therefore I am” arose  . One could define knowledge as ‘familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study’  or else ‘a sub-category of belief’  and doubt as an extended review of what has been initially stated. It is obvious that there is a correlation between the two concepts, but the problem arises when one tries to establish a link between these two values. A vivid example of this case would be the story of Socrates when learning that the Oracle at Delphi had said that he is the wisest man in Athens. Instead of accepting this title, he tried to find the truth by doubting this statement and trying to prove that this notion expressed by the Oracle was false. Based on his doubt, he followed inductive reasoning by asking other what was worth in life and nobody gave him a clear answer. Thus he concluded that he may actually be the wisest one as he did not pretend to be someone he was not. Moving to a broader scale, one could attempt to determine whether doubt is a key to knowledge by examining two specific areas of knowledge, history and mathematics and real life situations where doubt has led to awareness and understanding.
First of all, history is one of the areas where doubt is thought to be a key to knowledge. If not doubt exactly, then skepticism as it is the zone where people gain knowledge from past resources. Since those resources are often biased, it is through doubt that people can assess the source they are acquiring their knowledge from. Some could argue that this does not fall under the definition of the word knowledge because there is no belief. Of course this argument could not possibly stand, as belief is probably set after the value and the background of the historic resources has been established. Also, when people are searching for truth through in history, they try to combine all of the resources that they have and all of their different interpretations, in order to come to a conclusion, simply by using reasoning. Most of the times, when looking at historic facts, reasoning comes in the form of truth tests. Despite the fact that there are three types of truth tests, coherence, pragmatic and correspondence, only two of them can be used so as to determine the validity of historical resources. Firstly the coherence test, which calls you to think what information the resource is providing you with and based on what you already know you come to a conclusion. This could mean that you look for problems in the claim itself, consider why a historic fact can have more than one different interpretation, but also consider possible strengths that the argument has. Apart from the coherence test, the correspondence test can be used effectively, which means that the person in search of truth throughout history will ‘go and check’  the validity of his resources. Even though it is quite difficult, one can actually use this test by combining the information of the resource with what else had been happening at the world at that time period, remarks made by others and even look at the language and tone used to describe the historic fact.