Strengths And Weaknesses Of Using 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

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.

What reason engages in is always its own manifestation, be that language with its power of signification or be that harmonious numbers. In and through the sciences, reason searches for itself. Reason's true object is reason itself. Reason never simply deals with physical or historical objects as such.it manifests itself in culture and nature.

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

Knowing the reasons for events helps develop a deeper understanding of an event or a series events than just learning who attacks who and what comes about it. It also allows us to learn from our past mistakes, to prevent unnecessarily conflict, and to learn what not to do to solve a given problem.

Rationale gives substantial thinking and assurance in judgment, however, it is subordinate to common sense needs. The principal and most important piece of logic concerns the application of principle. Epictectus argues that the ills that human beings experience are as a result of mistaken beliefs of what is surely worthy. According to him, as human beings, We have put our trust in the wrong things, or possibly put it in the wrong way.

BonJour manages to defend the claim that a priori justification is necessary in order to avoid a severe, indefensible skepticism and demonstrates that any argument against a priori justification would undermine itself. This dialectical argument demonstrates that a denial of a priori justification is not only unsatisfactory, but impossible for the sake or argumentation. An empiricist critic could only appeal to pragmatism while accepting skepticism or surmount the impossible task of empirical justification of inference. This dialectical argument is by far BonJour's

In accordance with natural human behavior, we feel as though for every action there is a reaction, as well as a reason. We vie to inject logic inside our world because to accept the idea that there is not rationale for anything, including our own existence, is unthinkable. This idea that we unawarely manufacture reason to the world because in actuality, there is none, jeopardizes the very balance in our society. Our quest is not noble, rather fueled by our fear of uncertainty. Since the logic of our world is derived solely from the knowledge of

First, I will introduce The Knowledge Argument and then further elaborate it by explaining its premises and conclusion. Second, I will present one I considered the strongest objection against the argument. Finally, I will explain why the knowledge argument succeeds and how the objection against it fails. The Knowledge Argument, proposed by Frank Jackson, is an argument against Physicalism (the thesis that everything is physical). The core idea of KA is that physical facts cannot give rise to facts about subjective experience, namely qualia.

A. Reason: An intellectual process that uses logic to evaluate the validity of ideas and arguments.

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

     The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types

We laugh about the person who says, ‘I know I’m right; don’t confuse me with arguments’. And yet there are times when we find ourselves wanting to say that too. For there are situations in which we feel sure that we know something, even though if asked to give a good argument to back up our claim we are at a loss to know quite how to do so. ‘I know you’re the person I spoke to on the bus yesterday.’ ‘I know I have two hands.’ ‘I know it is wrong to let that child starve.’ ‘I know that six minus four leaves two.’ Our experience of being confident that we are right in cases like those is often called intuition. Intuitive knowing seems to be a direct, convincing way of knowing, which needs no further argument. And it is a perfectly ordinary,

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