If someone told me today that the Earth is the center of the universe, I would probably laugh. Because in the 16th century, Galileo refuted this theory, asserting that the sun is the center of the universe. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief, although much of what we claim as knowledge today comes from discoveries and inventions. So, to what extent can we justify the knowledge we accept today as true? Therefore, knowledge can be information that is constantly updated and improved. With more research and evidence provided, our understanding and understanding of the world around us can be changed. This essay will explore the question both in the natural sciences and in history. Natural science is based on the scientific method and includes five key steps: observation, hypothesis, experiment, law and theory. There are many problems in the scientific method, such as expectations in observation, basic assumptions in hypothesis, and the problem of induction in law. Due to these problems, scientific theory can lead to an invalid conclusion. Over time, scientists will discover new evidence that does not fit the old model and will then conduct new research to develop a new theory. If the theory holds up and provides a better explanation of things, a new paradigm will form and lead to a scientific revolution. The knowledge we accept as true is constantly evolving and can be proven by the Flat Earth model. Thousands of years ago, people believed that the Earth was shaped like an airplane. Then around the 6th century BC, Pythagoras developed the new paradigm of a spherical Earth in Greek astronomy and around 330 BC, Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth and put the theory into practice. Knowledge of the world ...... middle of paper ...... about, but to help us understand the society of the past and increase our control over our current society. “There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. Said by Alfred North Whitehead. In this essay, explore the issue of natural science and history, leading to the conclusion that there is no perfect knowledge in natural science and history. Our worldview is always an explanation and we can never be sure that our understanding is true. It is true that knowledge has been accepted because the truth can be rejected. As we delve into the details with ever more precise measurements, we constantly find new evidence that contradicts our accepted knowledge. A new theory developed based on the new information that explained the phenomena more precisely. But previous research has always been constructed as a step in the continuous ladder of knowledge..