The idea of ​​knowledge could be interpreted as the accumulation of intelligence resulting from a posteriori (experimental) learning. As a society, we learn to rely on others for information. The prescribed title assumes that all knowledge presented is systematically the product of a combined effort. Collaboration simply refers to two or more individuals working together toward common goals. Furthermore, what can we define as a product of knowledge? Personally, I believe that knowledge production is the act of gathering information (respectively over a period of time) to create a finalized product. Essentially, the act of conjuring up the idea of ​​a new idea and pursuing it further, or refining an existing idea to stem new information. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay I decided to discuss this statement with Natural Sciences and Indigenous Knowledge Systems as they connected best with me. This essay will therefore focus on the question of knowledge: “To what extent does knowledge production in the natural sciences and in indigenous knowledge systems represent collaboration in challenging established knowledge?” The example of the Big Bang theory illustrates the essence of collaboration in the natural sciences. In 1927, George Lemaître suggested that the universe was born from a single atom. His idea, inspired by Albert Einstein's theory of relativism, aroused the curiosity of other scientists like Edwin Hubble and Robert Wilson. This gave rise to theories such as Hubble's law and cosmic microwave radiation, which supported the idea of ​​an expanding universe. With the help of newer scientists, not only was Lemaître's theory supported, but new evidence, yet to be analyzed in more depth, was introduced. The role of collaboration challenges the primary source of knowledge in the natural sciences. How is knowledge initially extracted in the natural sciences? Many theorists have unconsciously relied on chance as a source of knowledge to develop new theories. Although plausible and sometimes ingenious, the intention of many scientists, however, is to further improve the behavior of nature using knowledge established from previous theories. For example, if one were to wonder about the density of a metal object after being suspended in a body of water, one would come to the conclusion that denser objects face an upward force relative to their mass. However, a more reasoned conclusion can be further confirmed by the application of Archimedes' principle of buoyancy which deals with the behavior of objects propelled in fluids. As discoveries arise from exposure to shared knowledge, I derived the assertion that the validity of reasoning in the natural sciences contributes to knowledge sharing. The process of drawing general conclusions from specific cases, also known as inductive reasoning, is an example of working with the validity of our conclusions arising from our certainty in previously recognized experiences. Skepticism also plays an important role in the production of new knowledge. Skepticism, the act of questioning one's attitude or doubt toward one or more elements of belief, suggests that scientists are developing theirknowledge through continuous testing and analysis. Popper's falsification theory states that scientists should spend time proving uncontroversial theories. In doing so, new scientists are able to develop anomalies by improving the flaws of known theories. Skepticism can also suggest the presence and necessity of a paradigm shift in knowledge acquired in the natural sciences. A scientific revolution involves scientists becoming dissatisfied with the continuous model reinforced throughout scientific history. They therefore present a new perspective for making scientific discoveries. Through lessons learned from other scientists, “paradigm shift” results in the ability to produce new models, intended to replace scientific standards rather than deviate from old ones. However, does the problem of induction suggest that scientific knowledge is inherently an unreliable source? Problems with induction arise because of the risk of knowledge loss as scientists continue to usher in theories based on their limited experiments, resulting in drastic advancements in scientific history. Although paradigm shifts radically alter perspectives for understanding reality, the history of science suggests that scientific knowledge is a cumulative process that can obey or disobey established knowledge to further encourage the production of new knowledge. Collaboration can also be observed through peer review. Peer evaluation refers to the process of monitoring a person's performance to ensure that they meet a specific criterion. By working in groups, peer review eliminates errors in scientific reasoning to ensure rapid transfer of knowledge. If peer review requires the ability to identify errors in scientific research, to what extent are experts needed to examine the authenticity of established knowledge in the natural sciences? Since scientific knowledge can be fallible, it is important that qualified experts evaluate research and evidence before it is launched. This allows poor research to be rejected at an early stage and only encourages the production of substantiated knowledge. It can be argued that the importance of collaboration in the natural sciences is overlooked with the theory of dogmatism – the tendency to avoid such incorrect theory without consideration of other opinions. In such cases, scientists are certain that their theory is closer to reality and therefore reject other opinions as null hypotheses. Another reason for the individuality of knowledge may arise from the subjective nature of science. The theory of relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth and that the beliefs of others depend on their judgments and culture. Accordingly, an opposing argument could be that excessively opposing ideas can lead to new knowledge errors. It is reasonable to reduce the extent of questioning because it can contribute to self-doubt, but science must self-correct. As has been proven throughout scientific history, any error found in scientific knowledge must be dissected for correction by another individual in the future. Another area of ​​knowledge that can be considered is that of indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge system refers to a minority community with deep historical ties to a geographic area.