"When we reflect on Nature, or the history of mankind, of our own intellectual activity, the first picture presented to us is an endless maze of relations and interactions, in which nothing remains what, where, and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes out of existence. This is primitive, naive, yet intrinsically correct conception of the world was that of Ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and also is not, for everything is in flux, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away" -Engel

As the quote above describes knowledge is very complex and everything thing comes and passes away. But the most important part of the quote in my opinion is that "everything is and also is not" by Heraclitus the important thing in this part and that I totally agree with is that we really don't know if we really are or we really are not, for we don't know if anything is really happening to us and this is something that none of the tests of truth pragmatic, coherence, correspondence could ever get even close to proving because this is a matter of some system way beyond us a paradigm which only exists in another world, in another dimension. So according to this belief of mine it is pointless to even write an essay about justifying hierarchies of disciplines or types of knowledge because how do we know anyone of us really exists. Think about this how do we know the universe was ever created, how was it created, how could it have been created, at least for now there is no answer so there is no proof that we are real.

Since beliefs fall into sets of beliefs, all beliefs fall into a paradigm, systems often fail and we create new ones, when we create a new system of beliefs or alter/change a system of beliefs we say that a paradigm shift has occurred. Paradigm shifts are very important because they occur all the time. People always change their systems of beliefs because we are all always taking new input and new knowledge and this causes us to change our beliefs thus making a paradigm shift which is taking in a new paradigm as legitimate. This only is so because what we consider to be true now we suppose has always been true but this can be changed and the cycle repeated again in another paradigm shift and the cycle starts again and that new system is what you consider to have been true all along. As you can see without understanding beliefs and systems of beliefs you can't understand the basics of theory of knowledge.

Types of knowledge fall into knowledge as a whole almost the same way as beliefs fall into systems of beliefs, which are paradigms. There are different types of knowledge such as metaphysical, empirical, rational, and values. These all are related to the way in which you get to believe something, such as metaphysical beliefs which are beliefs that you just believe in your mind such as god. Metaphysical beliefs cannot be seen or proven. Other types of knowledge are empirical beliefs, empirical beliefs are beliefs that you acquire through sensory evidence provided by the senses of your body. Rational beliefs are acquired through reasoning and logical processes done by your mind. One thing about empirical beliefs/propositions - there are no certain empirical propositions they are all hypotheses which may be confirmed or discredited in actual experience.

Now that you know about beliefs and types of knowledge it is time to prove that you can justify hierarchies of disciplines and types of knowledge. The first thing that should be given attention is that since everything you believe is made up of systems of beliefs which is the appropriate translation of hierarchies of disciplines, since hierarchies of disciplines are systems of beliefs or paradigms hierarchies of disciplines will further be mentioned as systems of beliefs and paradigms for the sake of simplicity. So how can we justify paradigms? According to the pragmatic and the coherence theories of truth to prove something is true according to these very similar theories the thing you are trying to prove has to cohere to a paradigm or