First of all generalization is a general explanation or idea acquired by derivation from particular cases by mostly observation. Sometimes our generalizations can be based on our experiences, emotions and perceptions. There are methods for knowing where speculations do exist and data is more precise, for example, in measurements or the normal sciences. In any case, we can never be a hundred percent sure certain that what we feel, see or accept is acknowledged as valid from everybody. In this manner, I believe that the statement written above is more likely to be true means I agree.
If we should give an example, this can be about the sport teams. For example basketball team plays and you are watching it, the team may ruin the play but we cannot say that they are such a bad team that they ruin the play all the time. On the other side if we search about the teams history and get some data about their losts and wins we may say something about the team but just looking at one game and make a general comment (generalization) would be pretty wrong.
Another example could be taken from the art galleries. In art galleries there are tons of pictures, each and every picture has different meanings hidden inside and when the people look at them they all see something different related with the history of them maybe. The main idea is that, even for the pictures our generalizations may lead us to the wrong way.
Behind these the generalizations may help us in the natural sciences such as math, physics and biology. In the natural sciences we see generalizations all the time because the experiences are done multiple times which is enough to make generalizations. For example in the world wherever you go, 2 plus 2 is equal to 4. No matter how many times we repeat the same calculation, the answer would never change and makes the generalization a right one.
Another impact that separates the cost starting with one nation then onto the next is the power of its economy; in the USA, for instance, the costs are put in whichever esteem the administration needs. This is another case of why speculations are never 100% genuine and might be mistaken.
Continuously when you make tests, they must be rehashed one hundred times to check if the outcomes meet, they must be reasonable tried, else you have bamboozled, and the outcomes won’t be obvious. By doing the tests bunches of times it is probably going to accomplish similar outcomes again and again, and that is the thing that you need, notwithstanding, you can’t state that this specific analysis will dependably give a similar outcome.
When we sum up, we can confer botches effortlessly, as perhaps there has been an absence of concentrate of the subject, or an absence of specific perception which for me can be viewed as more exact and exact, as there is a more extensive perspective of the issue being examined, and most of the time we can prove these perceptions, on the off chance that they are done effectively. Likewise, there are things we say where nobody can negate this, so it’s considered “genuine”. So basically my answer to the knowledge question that I wrote above would be yes. We are more likely to be mistaken in our generalizations than our particular observations.