Knowledge can be defined as a set of collection of facts, relevant information and particular skills that acquired through various experiences. It will take place maybe by pursuing education which deals with the basic theoretical or practical understanding of a particular subject. English and History are possibly the concerned area of knowledge which is basically associated with reason, and this is the only reason why this trait makes it ‘universal’. Therefore, the primary assumption that I have made is that English and History qualifies as shared knowledge. Alternatively, it has been seen that historians are often known to depend on statements generated from eye witnesses or major primary sources that are said to be having advance experience in regard with the historical event that took place. This type of heavy dependency on specific peoples’ observations and memories in history makes it a knowledge gained experience, or particular amount of empirical knowledge. This dissimilarity caused among the concerned areas of knowledge puts up the question, to what extent does the empirical knowledge may offer more certainty as compared to shared knowledge?
Knowledge is said to be practicable and therefore it is important to diagnose this fact. It’s not only disciplined to gratify an ornamented logic but to ratiocination its cyclic use. Whenever it is said that whole philosophy can be concealed as history (positive workings required systemizing them which already have been taken care of), one must always deal in his/her inquiry with chunk of knowledge. For example: “Whales are known as mammals,” “I was born in Australia,” “Stanford is located in California.”