In order to explore these two ways of more deeply, one must first understand where the scientific assumption that a table is empty space comes from. It originates from Earnest Rutherford’s “Gold-Foil Experiment”, during which he observed that a beam of radioactive particles had passed directly through a sheet of gold without diverging. Through his observations and analysis, Rutherford concluded that even the smallest particle, the atom, is empty space. Based on the previous findings that all matter is empty space; relatively, it was able to be a mere table was assumed to be empty space. Perception-wise, we see that a table is an object in front of us and we feel that it is a solid object. Thus, what we conclude with our senses is just as correct to us as what we conclude the experimental. However, the philosophy of objectivity would prove this to be false, by the proposition that “truth is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are mind-independent-that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.” This implies that scientific knowledge is completely objective, in contrast to our perception. Yet, when looking closely to the way Rutherford’s conclusion was obtained; we can see that the experimental is not so different from the perceptional. Rutherford, in fact, used his sense of sight to observe what was happening, and then used his own reasoning to conclude what he saw and what he perceived. This is explained in the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant in which he counters objectivity by saying that, “scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves”. Therefore, can we say that truth is absolute and it is merely our perceptions of that truth that are relative? Does this mean that facts, which are perceptions of truth, are relative? Is scientific fact, therefore, merely a consensus of the scientists, which makes it simply an assumption of what it really is. Since scientific theories have constantly been proved and disproved, this indicates that it is simply our perceptions that are changing and not the actual truth itself. Ghandi had once said, “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements, but to be consistent with the truth.” He had moved from truth to truth as his life progressed, so he said that if one were to find an inconsistency between any two things he had written, that the person “would do well to choose the latter”. Furthermore, an area of knowledge, science, overlaps with a way of knowing, perception; yet, both still generate what was called “conflicting” results. Moreover, if our perception played a key role in generating both, then why were the perceptions so different? This brings about the importance of context.