As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take

The research conducted by Psychological Association of India in 2010 argued that human behaviour is complex and inherently human desire is insatiable, therefore, as one becomes aware of aesthetics for one specific quality, he desires to know other features. That unquenchable thirst leads one to more complex environment as he proceeds further to gain more knowledge. It has important significance since it beacons the conscience of every individual to limit his/her desire in order to make things clear and easily understood. While, there is no reservation that more knowledge helps one to understand things clearly and affords one to explore more in order to correct the deficiencies, there are few reasons to believe that more knowledge, often more than is required, leads to more intricacies. More knowledge urges one to explore diverse fields that forces him to find contrasting knowledge, which makes him oblivion.

However, true may be the case that surfeit knowledge is dangerous, one such argument that supports the idea of increased clarity based on more knowledge is that moral restraint or restrictions to one desires actually helps him/her to make the congeal subject either pure liquid or solid. The incomplete knowledge of mathematics to students of high school is likely to confuse them on the use of mathematics in real life since due to their young, exploring and juvenile age they are not able to understand the connection between mathematics and physics. For example, the book written by Leo Tolstoy in early 17th century argued that the universe was written in the language of mathematics. Consequently, famous physicists such as Mr. Einstein restricted his desire to understand physical world only by using mathematics. Had he used other fields such as psychology, he would have not discovered useful equations that resolved the mysteries of nature. Therefore, application of more knowledge with the restrained mindset helps one to understand the complexities.

Contrary to above, as human desires are insatiable, first argument that states that more knowledge leads to complexity is that the drive to achieve impeccable success leads one to completely diverting from the subject. The researchers from many fields such as economics often intend to find a theory to explain the behaviour of financial system by referring to the previous studies and finding the flaws in these previous studies. The one who strives for best will likely to move from one study to another in order to find the whole fallacies and in such a desire, he would be lost from his objective and would make the things convoluted for himself. For example, the research conducted by Econometric Society of India in 2006 concluded that students who aspire to achieve pinnacle often ends up at nothing, though their knowledge is more by exposing themselves to many studies but they hold inconsistent views on the same thing. Therefore, more knowledge often leads to convolution in case one vies for superiority.

Finally, further to the above paragraph, another argument that buttresses the narrative that more copious knowledge leads to difficulty is that as the world moved to globalisation, it made things complicated which is correlated with the increased knowledge. Before the globalisation, the countries were contended with themselves and there were no conflicts and competition. But as it moved to the path of globalisation, everyone tried for achieving materialistic things and erudite strove for more knowledge to explain such behaviour. The result is such that laws, regulations and whims and fancies of such a large population have integrated in a manner that is occluded and as one intended to understand them, he found himself in quandary. For example, the research conducted by people working on a research project for Government of India in 2012 in the field of global value chain concluded that life would have been easy to understand, had the countries not integrated. The study argued that because of haphazard mixture of different rules, more knowledge of global value chains tends to betray the conscience. Hence, more knowledge does not help one when things are large in scale and are integrated.

While concluding, as can be seen from above paragraphs that although more knowledge is expected to solve mysteries when applied in a closed or restricted field, it is likely to create confusion and even make simple things complicated in an environment of lofty goals and unplanned integration of things. Therefore, one must restrict his conscience to achieve only required knowledge that is relevant and appropriate for the subject.