Certain forms of knowledge are more definitely more reliable than others. An example of this is natural sciences compared to human sciences.
Math and natural sciences are very reliable because we can utilize evidence we have garnered from previous experiments and studies that resulted in understanding and new knowledge. Such as how we discovered how everything is made by atoms or how humans are made from many, many different cells. Thus, based off of what we have learned and are continuing to learn, there is more and more evidence to back up old claims and refute claims. Take discovering humans are made from many, many different cells. This is learned from the process of dissecting and checking over constantly to learn about the human body. Such that as time goes on, there will be more and more evidence and new findings that will help build up our overall knowledge on how the human body functions and what we are made of.
On the contrary, human sciences are not as reliable because it highly depends on the function of the human minds, which, at different times periods, can constantly change. Although we can gather data on these subjects, many of the information learned may be subject to change depending on how new theories and studies conclude. For example, a study back in the early 1900s did not include any ethical concerns and ideas. But nowadays, the studies we have to require ethical consideration of the participant, which then makes the accuracy and data of that old study not as reliable because it doesn’t check off some of what we have developed now. Furthermore, the way humans interact and think are constantly developing, such that there is no one person that thinks the same and not all studies can apply to everyone.
In conclusion, knowledge created by math and natural science may be more reliable than knowledge created by human sciences and history since there is a constant flow of evidence to back up the natural sciences and math but human sciences are subject to change while history may be bias.