When we talk about “knowledge production” we are referring to a complex and time-consuming process of something, which means “acquiring or gaining” knowledge which is a 'reliable information, an entity or thing that relates to our experience, the conceptual and representational thinking that everyone agrees on, and the "correspondence theory of truth" of what we call our "shared knowledge" in our TOK language. “Producing” something means bringing it out into the open, whether that something is the product of Nature or the latest technological gadget from which the “product” of human beings derives. “Production” is “producing in the light”, for example some mathematical structures are intrinsic to nature and derived from nature by our ancestors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Sometimes, people rely on these hypotheticals to develop some initial epistemological ideas about what data is and how it is created. for example, in trial cases, if the witness relies solely on experience, then the witness should add how this leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience might be a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the test, because experiences are also tests. “Conclusions” refer to our judgments, or theories accepted by a large population, about what something is. Our judgments are the definitions we give to things thus providing limits to things so that we can classify them as such and place them in our Areas of Knowledge. For example, even if we accept the appearance of atoms, we have no models applicable to the “evidence” we have regarding their nature and behavior. Atoms are symbolic entities represented by an algebraic formula, and their physical “existence” is “skipped” in order to “produce” knowledge based on the conclusions we have already arrived at regarding the nature of the atom and what it is. In this leap, we “get beyond” the problem of our lack of knowledge of what things like atoms are. Constructivism is basically theories based on how people build their intuition, ideas, experiences, or knowledge to understand new things. For example, two women created a new story by entering the Sabarimala Hindu temple in Kerala, offering prayers to the god and breaking the long-standing practice of ruling against women entering the temple. But their feat has sparked protests in several parts of the southern state. of Kerala, where the temple is located, by people who claimed that the act went against the tradition of the temple. This creates new knowledge of how socio-political, economic and anthropocentric people play an important role in breaking tradition as their is an act of faith and intuition that women are inferior to men and are not allowed in the temple and they believe that women are already divine and give lives so that they do not need to converse with God and this is their accepted knowledge and there are no historical facts or evidence to prove that women are above men or more divine but this is the "indigenous knowledge" system which is what they believe they accept it in the TOK language. Interestingly, by accepting women as before men or divine, they are the ones with the most suffrage and no freedom of right to vote. The phrase “Beyond the evidence” in accepting conclusions is a question that means: we must go further to accept conclusions that we believe are probably not real, to arrive at knowledge. For example, in questionsTok we are asked to take on a real situation and think beyond what is the evidence or actual solution because we imagine for all possible solutions to the problem. For example, great lawyers must leverage intuition and think beyond the evidence that supports the fact to defend guilt. Countering my statement, accuracy and reliability are not relevant as religious faith is personal knowledge, Buchak characterizes faith as a commitment to acting as if some statement were true without first having to examine additional evidence that could potentially support the 'statement. This shows the distinction between faith and intuition. Saying this, the production of personal knowledge also requires the acceptance of conclusions that go beyond the evidence. Accepting the evidence requires how we see and interpret it and apply it to the universe, as the evidence influences us to see the universe from a different perspective. For example, the Malagasy people accept a conclusion that seems to go beyond the evidence: that dancing with the exhumed bodies of their dead ancestors supports the common connection between the living and the spirits of the deceased who remain on earth until their buried bodies are buried. they are completely broken down by faith and religious beliefs. This is personal knowledge that became shared knowledge the moment people began to believe it. When will it be possible to produce knowledge without going beyond the evidence? When we believe or assume as a conclusion or truth. For example, any hypothesis or mathematical equation that goes beyond evidence when it becomes theory after there is sufficient evidence to support it. Contrary to my statement, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, meaning that people often imply statements like "I saw a bright light!" or “My life flashed before my eyes” or “Now I know there is a better place after death,” suggesting that the claimants suddenly recognized more than just human beings at work across the globe. These conclusions appear to go beyond the evidence available to support them. Knowledge is not always stable, infallible or incorruptible, sometimes it continues to change as we approach new ideas or evidence. For example, for Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, there was not enough evidence to support the hypothesis becoming theory or fact. Scientists assume that by working on such anomalies, they will be able to unravel them to see how they fit into current theory or contribute to a new theory. Since atoms or anything functions in producing the results we tend to desire, it does not matter what the nature of the atom actually is as long as we are able to produce reliable results or conclusions and could create a use of these results or conclusions. Stating that, within the Arts we will discuss our general lack of knowledge relating to the mysteries of imagination, knowledge and Art itself. To bring the work of art to light both as a “production” and as an art object it is not necessary for us to know or be certain of what “art” is or what “knowledge” is. Artists try to categorize reality through their intuitive understanding, but we can argue whether something is or is not art or whether a production is “good” or “bad”, however these are secondary to the work itself. The aim is not simply to create a work, but something more: the artist does not have control of his own creativity. Art is not based on evidence, that's how it differs from science. Art is a form of impersonal force that uses the artist's imagination, visualization and so that the artist accepts his "conclusions" (the work) as well as the fact that he does not.