Is Doubt the Key to Knowledge?

Peter Elbow’s essay centers on different ways to examine claims in life. Specifically, Elbow describes two different methods, or “games,” to examine claims: the doubting game and the believing game.

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

There has been an ongoing debate on whether psychology is indeed scientific, although recent, psychology is now considered a science. This is because it uses scientific methodology in researching, devising treatments and measuring the outcomes. These methods include collecting and analysing data and concluding their findings in order to identify whether the research or treatment adequality solves the problem. Scientific studies must be replicable, this means the if repeated exactly the same, the results should produce an identical outcome. Replicability can be increased by ruling out any alternatives that may not have originally been thought of. Objectivity in science is the idea that scientist, in an attempt to get the best results, must first

A person’s doubts can cloud their judgment on certain tasks at hand. On the other hand, a person’s certainty can blind someone from the truth. The argument ofDoubt versus Certainty is relevant today in the sense that it is the main argument for and against religion. The theory of doubt can also be used in literary works for a number of reasons. In John Patrick Shanley’s movie/play Doubt, the theme of “certainty versus doubt” is shown throughout the story to signify the importance of characterization and to symbolize the importance that a person must be cautious of the people around them.

Cohen’s article is a reminder to be careful when reviewing research. This article shows how not all research is true and people put their faith into what they want the research to mean. It is damaging to the progression of psychology as a science if researchers do not claim something as significant for being true. We do this by claiming something is significant because that is what NHST says, and

James Fowler’s theory of faith development includes six stages: primal faith, intuitive-projective faith, mythic-literal faith, synthetic-conventional faith, individuative-reflective faith, conjunctive faith, and universalizing faith (Hutchison,

“What do you do when you’re not sure...” so begins Father Flynn’s sermon near the beginning of the play Doubt. Father Flynn delivers his sermon to the people of St. Nicholas Catholic church in the Bronx in the year following President Kennedy’s assassination. His sermon builds upon a story of a sailor lost at sea who has doubts about the course he has set and his doubt becomes the metaphor for the community who has lost its certainty. So, in other words, when someone loses certainty they doubt about someone or something and want to belief the uncertain is true. To do so they make anything in their power to find out that their doubt is a belief even if it means to lie.

Faith, defined as a strong belief in something which cannot be proven, has been argued over countless generations. Still, even without proof, individuals worldwide hold true to their faith each day. After studying faith and religion in texts written by scholars with varying backgrounds, it is easy to see faith is something which is widely disputed. Comparison of Sigmund Freud’s The Future of an Illusion and Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, fully displays the discrepancies in points of view on the function of faith, as well as the necessity of faith, in society; while the comparison of Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Karl Marx’s “on the Future of Religion,” demonstrate both similarities and differences

By carrying out the method of doubt, we are able to free ourselves from all prejudices with the intention of being able to withdraw our mind from our senses. In doing so, we set a base for being able to decipher the truth from the falsity (Meditations, 39). The reasoning to doubt not only comes from the desire to learn the truth, but to “establish anything firm and lasting

Even when someone tells us a story, no matter how much detail they include, we can never fully understand it, feel the emotions they felt, and so on. To this, I argue, much like Rene Descartes in his Meditations of the first philosophy, I believe that while we can call pretty much all things into doubt (Including testimony of others), it doesn’t necessarily make it practical. To question all testimony and information given to us by others is quite solipsistic and would make anyone’s life very

In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

Faith and reason were two modes of belief that dominated the history of Western Civilization. Both faith and reason were popularized as tools to understand the universe in Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian eras. By conflicting with each other, these two modes of belief sparked a lot of controversy. Reason or rationality is belief based on concrete evidence and logic. The development of one’s reason relies heavily on observation and questioning. Greco-Roman philosophers believed in the power of the human mind to understand the world. So in order to find ultimate truth, Greco-Roman philosophers dedicated their lives to perfecting their reasoning skills and encouraged those around them to do the same. Contradictory to reason, faith is the

The mystery of God's existence has been a crucial element of many religious studies and traditions. Who is God? What is God? Where is God? To effectively discuss the existence of God, it is necessary to illustrate the notion of faith. People of faith believe that God does exist, and that relationship with God gives meaning to their lives. Others who are skeptical point to God as an obsolete hope of an ignorant human race. People today live in a world distinguished by sophisticated technology in which modern science has been a strong agent in questioning the existence of God.

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