Knowledge, which is believed and justified as true, is usually supported by facts, believed to be true through the avenues of knowledge such as perception or reason. However, this statement can be limited by using the term "nothing more", because knowledge can contain more than just organized facts. This essay will evaluate the claim relating to mathematics and history, involving modes of knowing such as reason and perception. As an IB student, studying is not only a process of memorizing the knowledge provided, but also an evaluation of the process of generating knowledge about the subject studied. Regarding mathematics, I will discuss that knowledge can be supported by concepts that cannot be perceived or are not necessarily a fact, and that the organization of facts can occur once knowledge generated. In contrast, I will examine how knowledge of history is difficult to justify and therefore can be biased depending on who is organizing the facts. Looking at my IB subjects, I guess mathematics is the best example of knowledge being a “systematic organization”. facts.” The development of mathematical knowledge must continue logically, establishing itself as a function of other knowledge; When knowledge is justified, mathematicians use it as fact to prove other coherent knowledge within a logical system. For example, the Pythagorean theorem is justified by the fact that the length of the sides of a right triangle follows the rule. The cosine rule is proven using the Pythagorean theorem, and the cosine rule is justified as knowledge. This is called deductive reasoning, when knowledge is inferred deductively from the formal characteristics of other pieces of knowledge (or systematically organized facts). Below...... middle of paper ...... on distorted facts are not spotted. Thus, the boundary between belief and knowledge in history is ambiguous, the justification of assertions as facts supporting knowledge may be inaccurate, indicating that what is systematically organized into fact and therefore into knowledge may simply be a series of founded beliefs on erroneous assumptions. Knowledge generation may depend on logical reasoning and theory rather than an organization of facts, and does not necessarily have to be based on facts that can be perceived as existing in reality. Or, what counts as knowledge may be based on biased facts and therefore not necessarily systematically organized or true. The arguments against the above arguments mainly rely on the ambiguity of the definition of knowledge and facts, but it is still too extreme to conclude that "knowledge is nothing other than the systematic organization of facts »..”