In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the jury begins its deliberations with a vote of 11-1 in favor of guilty and ends 12-0 in favor of not guilty. From this, we might conclude that the jury started with false certainty and deliberated until they uncovered the certain truth. However, the jury is never able to establish whether or not the defendant is innocent. Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt—enough doubt that they do not feel that the evidence is enough to convict the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I am aware that the role of ways of knowing such as language and emotion in influencing the jury is not to be ignored; however, even the slightest thread of doubt changed the jury’s verdict. According to the graph, we can infer that our doubt reduces gradually while our knowledge has increased exponentially. Take for example, false memories and eye- witness testimonies. How can we know the past with confidence when our memories (i.e., previously existing information) is so susceptible to suggestion? As a student of science, it is often curiosity that drives scientific discovery but only with the birth of doubt do we often seek the truth behind a fact or opinion, and hence I am in consensus with the title. The quote, at hand, discusses at large the inverse relationship between the two variables, diametrically opposing each other- doubt and knowledge. It is also crucial to understand the distinction between curiosity, skepticism, and doubt