All of a sudden, knowledge seems to have a problem. Not because we had stopped short of it. In the contrary: There might be too much of it. Too much to know what's right. To know what to believe. To know what to rely on. — Have we just been calling it a problem? We take it back. The problem about knowledge is not so much a problem – it is the very nature of knowledge: Knowledge is less a matter of knowing and more a matter of doubt. It is qua defintition not reliable, unstable »equivocal«: many-faced and multifaceted. Now, what's this to us, anyhow? Answer: It is of utter importance to know, and accept, that knowledge needs not to be heeded, to be obeyed, but to be challenged, mistrusted, disputed. There needs to be wrestling: Among those »in the know«. Wrestling not only between those knowing different things, opposing things, contradicting things. But even more so and especially among those claiming to know the same thing. We must not allow us feeling impressed by those who postulate their knowledge the loudest, the »skilledest«, the smartest, the slickest, the cleverest, the aptest, the artfullest. Knowledge needs to be falsified – as Karl Popper introduced to call it. Not at all to talk it down. But to do it justice. The justice, that is, it deserves. What we get by doing so is: Progress. Even: Science. Nothing less. By not doing so: Happenstance. Chance. Accident. At best. Needless to say: This is not what we want – not in business, not in economics, not in the world, actually, as a whole. While giving ourselves away to the luxury of unchallenged knowledge and to relying on accident, what we end up getting might also be: Havoc.