'Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing\r'

'There be four main delegacys of perspicacious †rationality, perception, talking to and emotion. yet each 1 of them have their sustain strengths and weaknesses and only by haveing them will we be able to better use these ways of knowing to gain acquaintance. This essay will seek to sample the strengths and weaknesses of origin as a way of knowing. source is much seen as one of the most compelling ways of knowing †for it ‘seems to give us induction’ (Lagemaat, 112). Reason uses logic to fashion model contentions and conclusions.A benefit of priming coat using logic in motive is that it solelyows us access to innate or a priori association †cognition we tummynot access any otherwise way. unitary definition of A priori knowledge is innate knowledge that is not derived from experience scarce rather, ar frequent rules that we apply. (Cahn,Eckert,Buckley). There atomic number 18 several different forms that author out takes excep t these argon mainly inductive and deductive think †which will be discussed later in the essay. A major(ip) strength of causal agent as a way of knowing is that the learning we heap up from using it is certain.This is a great strength be get along we atomic number 18 provided with a strong prediction model that we flock build knowledge upon, thus providing us with information that we back tooth entrust to be professedly. We look to how this is use in an area of knowledge the natural sciences. take over for instance the c at oncept of neutralization play offions in Chemistry. In theory we know that a base would react with an biting to produce salt and water †a hypothesis that, up till this point, has been proven to be true †to form a salt and water. If we are presented with the following argument:All bases react with acids to form salt and water. Unknown sample X reacted with an acid and organise salt and water. We can conclude that un discovered sampl e X is a base. We used deductive rationalitying to mystify at the conclusion above. deductive reasoning provides us with a conclusion that is dead certain. The way deduction works is that we go from full general premises to a peculiar(prenominal) conclusion (Langemaat, 234). ilk the archetype above, so far we have seen that all acid-base reactions produce water and salt thus we believe sample X is a base as tumesce.At this point in time, there is no broil against the law of the acid-base reaction and this will remain a law of chemistry. This certainty reason provides is an extremely strategic strength as this shows that reason allows us to have strong cans that can be expanded upon. However with this certainty that reason brings, it has its weaknesses too. The first weakness of reason as a way of knowing is that it is particular. part we realise that unknown sample X is a base, this is all we know of it.This is where the weakness of deductive reason lies, it provides us with an extremely certain conclusion so that we can build upon our foundations that have been set but at the corresponding time, we are limiting our knowledge to just this small scope. Also, the certainty of the conclusion depends on the trueness of the premises. How can we prove that these premises are true? We believe that the premises are true because they have not been renounced as of yet. However if they were in fact wrong, our conclusion would be ill-judged as well resulting in a completely insincere argument.From this we can see that while reason can provide us with very certain conclusions, it limits us to building knowledge upon a specific foundation and the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises. The next strength of reason helps us obtain laws to explain abstract concepts and gain this knowledge in areas that our reeks cannot reach. This is a very important strength of reason as it shows how detached reason is from the empiric and sense per ception. We look to the natural sciences once again †the concept of fugitive dipole attraction between diatomic molecules.If we have the following argument: I, Br and Cl form temporary dipoles I, Br and Cl are group VII halogens hence, all halogens form temporary dipoles. This example shows how definitions and laws in the natural sciences are formed and how we use reason to do so. The example above uses induction, a method of reason that involves going from the specific to generate a general conclusion. This is how laws of the abstract are formed in science †we are uneffective to use sense perception or empirical knowledge, since we cannot see dipoles, to formulate these laws, we use reason to arrive at these conclusions.However, this is where the weakness of reason comes in as well. The problem with using induction is that these conclusions could have been arrived at in an incorrect way. The fact that these conclusions drawn are that of something abstract, how do we pr ove for sure that it is not other variable that affects it? Furthermore, what happens when in the future, when something that is not a halogen is discovered to form a temporary dipole. What happens to our definition of what can form temporary dipoles then? This is the weakness of reason in the natural sciences.Many times, Science applies inductive reasoning and even if a hypothesis is subject to uncountable experiments and stands positivist at this present time, it might not be true in the future. Since the natural sciences are a combination of the math and empirical, we cannot solely rely on our a priori knowledge. Science’s discoveries are often based on observations and this flout’s the rules of rationalism. When our senses are involved, our ability to reason might be compromised and pebibyte to specious premises and thus false conclusions.However, this is where experimentation comes in to prove as far as we can the design of scientific truth and discovery. t herefrom when it comes to the natural sciences, reasoning has its strengths in clearly delimit and classifying various concepts that are senses cannot reach. However, reason falls short in the test of time, where we do not know what future results might yield as well as the possibility of mixing our senses into our premises, leading to false concepts to begin with.Thus, we can conclude that reason is limited in science by time and the extent of knowledge we already have. Even though reason might follow a logical flow, one may still arrive at false conclusions due to problems in our web of coherence. This is a major weakness of reason as we jump to precipitant conclusions and cause us to make fallacious statements. For example, in the area of knowledge of the human sciences, analysts have been act to identify patterns in human behaviour and events. consequence for instance in a certain country, offensive activity rank reach an all time high.Analysts would be looking for the f actor that caused this and if at the exact same time there was a decrease in abortions, they might form this argument Crime rates increased Abortion rates decreased Therefore the decrease in abortions caused the increase in shame rates. This is an example of a fallacy called ‘ bit hoc ergo propter hoc’ where (wikipedia). This fallacy occurs when we assume that event A is the cause of event B just because B comes later A. The example above is guilty of committing this fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ as it quickly concludes based on two events that happened at the same time.The analyst may argue that he used logic to reason out this relation but in real fact there might have been galore(postnominal) other factors that contributed to this increase in crime and violence. This example illustrates the weakness of reason as even though this is a sound argument, its premises are not the cause of each other and thus the argument is invalid. To conclude, w e can see that reason has a monumental role in many of the areas of knowledge but also presents many shortcomings, especially when experience and other factors come in. We are empirical creatures and it is difficult to of all time think rationally and logically.As Thomas Aquinas once said, ‘Most men seem to live check to sense rather than reason. ’ Perhaps this then is the major weakness of reason as a way of knowing †it cannot exist alone but necessitate to coexist with the other ways of knowing. Works Cited Cahn, Steven M. , Maureen Eckert, and Robert Buckley. companionship and Reality: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Upper institutionalize River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print. Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: prat Murray, 2003. Print. Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.\r\n'