Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

that we could use reason to find certain truth if we used it correctly, while

In science class we learn about observations and inferences. Observations are things that you can experience with your five senses; they are based on fact and can be proven based on the information present. Inferences are basically assumptions; a guess or hypothesis one creates based on their observations. Assumptions can be proven right or wrong as information is gathered or provided. This conundrum is something that all individuals must face in daily life; when we make assumptions, it can be an extremely dangerous practice or habit.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Cahn, Steven M., Patricia Kutcher, George Sher, and Peter J. Markie, eds. Reason at Work: Introductory Readings in Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Florence, KY: Thomson Learning, Inc., 1996.

that we could use reason to find certain truth if we used it correctly, while

Induction is a form of reasoning where the premises support the conclusion, but do not confirm that the conclusion is true. To justify induction, we are required to justify that we can infer that experiences we have never experienced will resemble those that we have experienced. Making inductive inferences is necessary for everyday life as well as in science. It is rational to rely on inductive arguments in everyday life for claims such as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” But inductive arguments require that nature is uniform. For example, tomorrow the laws of physics will continue to work the same as how they have in the past, so the world will continue spinning and the sun will rise. This perceived uniformity (the principle of uniformity of nature) allows claims like the one previously outlined to be easily understood. Although inductive arguments are useful, whether or not they can be justified is a topic of debate. In James Van Cleve’s “Reliability, Justification and the Problem of Induction,” he uses an inductive argument to attempt to justify induction. In his justification he claims that his method of argument is not circular. I argue that his reasoning is problematic because an inductive argument is not able to justify induction, mainly because inductive arguments presuppose the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

The reason induction originated as a concept of reasoning did not come from its ability to result in proofs, but the usefulness in predicting future occurrences which it allows. As an example of this principle, we can bring into the light the supposed laws of nature which provide constants to our physical world. For any number of the infinite reasons at any instantaneous point of time exceptions to the laws of nature can emerge. Due to this fact, and the fact that the laws of nature are based on a finite number of circumstances of which permanence is assumed, laws of nature cannot be fully proven. However, without the human assumption of the existence of laws of nature, the progress of science would be halted. The laws of nature serve as an exceptional example of how even without a definite proof, inductive reasoning enables leaps in knowledge and

Aquinas argues that when seeking knowledge regarding the divine, it is possible to gain some of this knowledge through the use of reason.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher considered to be the “central figure of modern philosophy” once said “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason” (plato.stanford.edu). Reason is defined as “the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgments logically” (theoryofknowledge.net). There are two forms of reasoning, namely deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is to form a specific conclusion from a set of general premises. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the formation of a general conclusion from a set of specific premises (sociology.about.com). In both, although the conclusion may or may not be true, the set of

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

While induction is only one of the five parts of the inductivist account of science, it is one of the most important steps. Induction is the process by which scientists make a leap of thought from observation to theory, and if induction has flaws, then the new theory must unquestionably contain flaws. Regardless of these errors, a scientist, according to an inductivist philosopher, will still accept a particular scientific theory if it can be validly induced from factual observation and experiment.

Knowledge is typically of a mind-independent reality. It is expressed in a public language, it contains true propositions — these propositions are true because they accurately represent that reality — and knowledge is arrived at by applying, and is subject to, constraints of rationality and logic. The merits and demerits of theories are largely a matter of meeting or failing to meet the criteria implicit in this conception. (2)

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to