The world evolves around us and we evolve around it. Knowledge as we know it can evolve and evolve over time. Knowledge in its practical definition is information transmitted from one person to another using any type of communication and then using our given senses to take in information, which is stored in our mind as memories for future use as knowledge, as true belief, truth in its definition is a fact that has been proven or a belief that can be accepted as correct. The knowledge we understand may surpass some of the other ideas we have come up with. We can “accept” what we learn at first because we would have no evidence or evidence that would contradict this and after rationalization. Based on our empirical experience of the world, it can be described as a way of justifying what is right with quantifiable evidence. “Rejected” can be defined as knowledge that is neglected or no longer reliable after experimentation or through a process of rationalization. According to the title, the knowledge seems useful, but we neglect some of it and refine it into new knowledge based on new discoveries. As the foundation of knowledge is based on past experiences and observations, the knowledge question raised is: "To what extent do our past experiences affect our decisions about what knowledge we accept?" The title indicates that we may discard knowledge as we discover new and developed theories or problems. Rather, we always use discarded knowledge to infer what must be correct. The idea of ​​a paradigm shift arises when we find new knowledge and look around the concept and then when we find an error or a new deduction we jump into another knowledge or concept and this jump is called a paradigm...... middle of paper ... the truth. Looking at this from a different perspective, we don't dismiss all the knowledge we know. Overall, this essay I wrote asserts that history is what makes us who we are by learning through mistakes which are considered "discarded" knowledge. When it comes to natural science, we cannot always go back to discarded knowledge, but rather start from there, because starting from the beginning will simply bring us back to where we left off. “There are many scientific hypotheses that are false. This is perfectly fine; these are the openings to discover what is right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must withstand the most rigorous standards of proof and review. This quote says it all. This led me to a new knowledge question: to what extent do past progress and mistakes allow us to get closer to the truth.?