History is an area of knowledge that is key to the function of society, we use history as a means of a mapping of the human timeline and treat history as lessonsto further develop our society. An important question arises in the mind that is “How can we be certain of truthful knowledge?” Reason is used to a great extent in argument between historians to derive what occurred in the past and to rule out faulty historiography through revelation of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are sources that were present at the time of the event, and secondary sources as historians attempt to decipher what occurred during a particular event. Problems arise within primary sources as historian during a particular event may use objective opinions to further political economical or personal gains rather than truthfully mentioning what unfolded during this time period. Secondary sources also have a similar problem as historians can also further political economical or personal gains rather than describe the events, as winston churchill said history is written by the victors. An example of this is seen during the reign of the communist Soviet government, in where the bolsheviks overthrow the provisional government and resulting from them being victories controlled all media within the state and satellite states of the USSR. This caused the primary sources of various Soviet historians to be extremely biased towards the government of the Soviet Union casing truthful knowledge to erode. Moreover more sources primary and secondary contribute to the lack of confidence in knowledge this is due to the fact that as the number of sources increase one cannot be accurately sure on what truly unfolded for a particular event and thus skepticism increases. On the other hand if less sources are existent in other words less knowledge than confidence of events increases, with history, generally as more time unfolds centrality of events in the distant past fade. However it can be said that the increase of knowledge allows to create certainty as more knowledge is produced about the idea. It can also be said that the more knowledge produced leads to more doubt. Overall we see that through the increase of knowledge doubt increases consequently. The acknowledgment of the negative effects of cognitive dissonance is important for the betterment of society as it is a common enemy for all societies. It restricts ambiguity and hinders the ability for production of new knowledge, as well as limits the capacities of many people that would otherwise contribute in a positive manner to society. We must distance ourselves from the belief that we know everything, it is only then that we can learn something. In contrast doubt allows the fear of the unknown as an incentive for the production of new knowledge. However it’s hard to evaluate the role of doubt in the production of knowledge accurately, but through analysis increased knowledge doubt is seen as indispensable to knowledge. Are questions equivalent to doubts.