为了进行有意义和完整的调查,使用科学的方法,真理的来源不应被误认为是那些可以提供一些好的临时满足这样的失误导致偏离知识和呈现一个人焦躁不安,因为他们无法辨别谎言中包含这样一个对象旨在反映更大的形象。所获得的这种新知识是有害的，因为它不是通过对一门适当科学的研究而获得的，而是在它的自命不凡之下获得的。人们可以很容易地问自己，真正的科学努力和自命不凡的科学努力之间有什么区别?这两种努力都始于同一种渴望的根源，在这种渴望中，一个人试图扩展自己头脑中所包含的知识领域，但当一个人为了获得某种评价或另一种效果而寻求获得知识时，这种自命不凡就产生了。虽然评价是一种辛苦劳动后应得的反应，但一个人的骄傲可能会阻碍从客体中获得的实际知识。其次，一个以自命不凡的方式科学地寻求真理的人，并没有积极地从事这种探索，而是假定大自然掌握着答案，因此并不强迫大自然回答一个人可能感兴趣的问题。在这方面，人类选择接受提供给他的答案。所获得的知识是肤浅的，说它的人是无知的，他们滔滔不绝地说它的内容，感知理解它的形式，但实际上并没有统一起来达到完全的理解。虽然所有的哲学家和其他个人都同意真正的知识是存在的，但是许多人对它的本质和如何获得它持不同意见。休谟(David Hume)和许多其他经验主义者认为，一个人可能拥有的任何知识的来源，都来自他/她对存在对象的经验。这些物体被人类感知，人类在这些物体给自己留下深刻印象后，创造出各种想法，从而使感官体验及其翻译成为可能。其他思想家，如伊曼努尔•康德(Immanuel Kant)和圣奥古斯丁(Saint Augustine)，没有如此强调人类的经验，而是同意人类拥有与自身相一致的理解形式，以便能够承认自身之外的一切事物的存在。经验确实向人类传递了有关尘世生活的信息，但是，在这个领域之外，还有什么别的概念是已知的呢?它是否可以通过人类的创新而为人所知，或者它是否需要一种只有少数人拥有的智慧和精神力量?
In order to conduct a meaningful and complete inquiry by use of a scientific approach, the sources of truth must not be mistaken for those which may provide some good for a temporary fulfillment as such misstep results in a deviation from knowledge and renders an individual restless since they cannot discern the falsehood contained in such an object which seeks to mirror the image of something greater. This new knowledge acquired is pernicious in that it has been attained not through an investigation in respect to a proper science but rather it has occurred under its pretensions. One may readily ask oneself what is the difference between a true scientific endeavor and that which falls under pretensions? Both of these endeavors begin with the same root of aspiration in which one seeks to expand the realm of knowledge which is contained in the mind, but the pretension occurs when one seeks to gain knowledge in order to gain some sort of appraisal or another effect. Although appraisal is a response that is merited after hard labor, one’s pride may hinder the actual knowledge that can be gained from the object. Secondly, one who searches for the truths scientifically in a pretentious manner is not actively engaging in this search but assumes that nature holds the answers and therefore does not compel nature to answer the questions a man of interest would have. Man in this respect chooses to take the answer provided to him. This knowledge gained is superficial and those who speak of it speak without knowledge, they loquaciously speak about its content and perceive to understand its form but in fact have not united both for a complete understanding.Although all philosophers and other individuals agree that true knowledge exists, many disagree on its nature and how it can be attained. David Hume and many other empiricists believe that the source of any knowledge that a being may have comes about through his/her experience with objects of existence. These objects are perceived by human beings who create ideas after having had these objects impress themselves upon the facilities which make sensory experience and its translation possible. Other thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Saint Augustine do not make such an emphasis on human experience but rather agree that humans posses forms of understanding with in themselves so that they may be able to acknowledge the existence everything outside of themselves. Experience does in fact relay information to beings about the earthly life but can any other sort of concept lying outside of this realm be known? Can it be made known through the use of human innovations or does it require a wisdom and spiritual intensity that only a select few posses?