Theory of Reason and Knowledge - Term Paper Example

Theory of Knowledge In science, reason is the primary means of knowing and forms the basis for the development of scientific knowledge. But pure reason by itself cannot remain the sole means by which knowledge is acquired. Rather reason must be combined with perception and language in order to serve a useful purpose and contribute to the acquisition of knowledge. Logic is the foundation of reason, which serves a useful purpose because it ensures that the information derived from it is based upon factual data that can be verified. But while this may be useful in the scientific field, it does not contribute effectively to the acquisition of knowledge. One example that may be cited in this context is the example of computers. These are machines that function purely on the basis of reason, but in some instances, the application of pure reason alone may result in a nonsensical or lopsided result that does not contribute to the acquisition of actual knowledge. The common understanding is that knowledge can be enhanced through a reliance on the things that we know, because this forms the basis for logical assumptions that are made. As a result, the set of things that are known are closed under entailment under deduction. As a result, any claim will be recognized to be true only if it can be substantiated as accruing or following from what is known. The implication under this approach that relies purely upon reason alone is therefore that knowledge will be limited because it cannot extend beyond the parameters of what is known and recognized as factual matter. This theory of knowledge is based upon correlation, i.e, that if a person knows one entity X and this is related to another entity Y which is based upon the factual X, then the person who knows X directly may also know Y, albeit indirectly. The strengths associated with the theory of reason are that knowledge that is derived there from tends to be solidly based in facts and has a scientific basis to it. As a result it is very reliable. Applying a scientific approach to the theory of knowledge ensures that it is also practical in approach because it can be borne out through experimentation and is not purely reliant on abstract elements. But there are some weaknesses associated with the application of pure reason alone to the theory of knowledge. One of the strongest arguments that have been offered against reliance purely upon reason is the proof that can be offered through contradiction, or the reduction ad absurdum approach. The paradox of Achilles and the tortoise is one example of such a paradox, which illustrates the drawbacks inherent in an approach relying purely upon reason. Achilles and the tortoise are involved in a race and the tortoise is allowed a lead of 100 feet. This is because through the application of reason, the presumption is that since Achilles is faster, this advantage must be offered to the tortoise, because Achilles would be able to cover the distance much quicker. It is assumed that each runner is moving at a constant speed, although one (Achilles) is very fast while the other (the tortoise) is very slow. By the time that Achilles covers the 100 feet and reaches the starting point where the tortoise started out, the latter would have advanced a further 10 feet. Applying only pure reason in this regard, the net result is that: In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.1 ” Since there are an infinite number of points where Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been before, he may never be able to catch up to the tortoise. No matter how fast he runs, there will always be a slight lead that the tortoise would gain every time because it has been allowed a lead2. There are also other paradoxes which are equally puzzling and demonstrate that the application of pure logic or reason to a problem can sometimes produce contradictory results, all of which however, appear perfectly logical. It is difficult to explain or justify the existence of these paradoxes by merely stating that a branch of Mathematics exists that deals with the infinite3. A reliance on pure reason is ineffective, as may also be noted from the application of pure logic in the use of computers. While computers are able to process information swiftly, make optimum use of memory and utilize data effectively, they are unable to apply perception and common sense in the processing of such information, thereby rendering them largely ineffective in their contribution to actual knowledge. Consequently, reliance upon reason or logic alone may not form an effective basis for a theory of knowledge, and several reasons have been provided against this theory of closure. For instance, analysing knowledge correctly requires that knowledge be tracked over a period of time, therefore it cannot be closed. Secondly, since knowledge may also be reliant upon other elements such as perception, memory and other similar elements which are themselves not closed, hence knowledge as a whole is not closed4. Thirdly, there are some propositions that cannot be known and this knowledge is derived from mundane claims based on what we actually know, therefore it leads to the conclusion that there is more knowledge that must be learnt, hence knowledge is not closed. Yet another argument against knowledge being a closed entity lies in the fact that scepticism would exist as a valid and true entity if knowledge was truly closed, as a result the conclusion to be drawn is that knowledge is not closed. Applying a purely reason and logic based approach however requires that knowledge be regarded as a closed entity because it does not take into account elements such as perception, subjectivity and common sense. Subjectivity is completely contraindicated in a logic and reason based approach, hence knowledge derived from such an approach is less well rounded and does not incorporate all necessary elements. One of the greatest weaknesses of the reason and logic based approach is therefore the failure to allow adequate room for incorporation of subjectivity and an inadequate explanation of elements of the infinite. Reason is a way of knowing that involves various different elements and it is a means by which people are able to exchange information and construct meaning by modifying and improving their ideas and opinions5. Knowledge is expected to be associated with reason since arguments require consistency, therefore reason is present in everyday decision making and problem solving. Reason is used in different domains for the purpose of creating, articulating and justifications of knowledge claims. When disputes and arguments arise on any aspect, the matter at issue is not merely the substance or the facts of the issue at hand but also how appropriate the reasons are that have been given for the acceptance of those arguments and how valid is the logic that has been used in order to arrive at the conclusions that have been reached.6 When reason alone is used as the basis for arriving at a theory of knowledge, it implies that all knowledge must be justifiable and must be based upon factual matter. But this does not take into account, the greater powers of persuasion that some individuals may possess in presenting an argument, neither does it take into consideration the emotions and perceptions that are associated with the acquisition of knowledge. The strengths of using reason as the basis of knowledge lie in the ability to produce a valid argument and to support the knowledge with information and factual data, thereby imputing a high degree of reliability. But the weaknesses associated with this approach lies in its limited scope to incorporate subjective human emotions, language and perceptions into the body of knowledge. Knowledge is an entity that is unique and meaningful only when it can also incorporate the rich texture of human subjectivity, emotions and language. Knowledge is meaningful to different individuals in different ways, depending upon their own perceptions and emotions. Reason as the basis of the theory of knowledge fails to incorporate this important element and thereby has some drawbacks associated with it. The composite body of true knowledge is embellished and enriched through the perceptions of individuals and the expression of their opinions and views. The subjective elements involved in such expressions may not always fall within the scope of reason. Furthermore, relying purely on reason could in some instances result in an ad absurdum approach, wherein the path of an argument leads to a contradiction in terms, producing a paradoxical situation and/or a nonsensical argument that may be perfectly within the bounds of reason, but does not make sense or contribute to the acquisition of knowledge that is relevant and useful. The application of pure logic may not always constitute knowledge because it may not allow for the exercise of common sense, as for example in the case of a computer, which processes information, but may produce data and/or information as a result that is not always meaningful. Through the use of argument, it may be possible to theoretically argue that proposition A leads to proposition B, but the result may be an absurdity that cannot be said to constitute meaningful knowledge. In order to constitute true knowledge, the information produced and circulated must be meaningful for human beings, because it is intended to be exchanged and processed in human minds. While it may be advantageous to adopt a reason based approach in knowing, this must also be supplemented with a wider inclusion of subjective emotion and perception in order to effectively constitute meaningful knowledge. On the basis of the above, it may thus be concluded that a reason based approach to knowledge is useful to the extent that it allows for accuracy in data and enhances reliability because it is based upon factual matter. Since knowledge must be transmitted down through the generations, information transferred must be accurate and based on facts rather than speculation. However, adopting a purely reason based approach would result in the transmission of knowledge that would be deprived of the rich input of human experience, emotion and perception. Such inputs contribute towards making knowledge more meaningful for other human beings. As a result, reason based knowing must be supplemented with the richness of human experiences and perceptions before it could constitute true knowledge. References: Physics”, (translation by R.P.Hardie and R.K.Gaye), Aristotle, 350 BCE, available online at: www.classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html; “The Epistemic closure principle”, December 27, 2005, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/; Theory of Knowledge. http://xmltwo.ibo.org/dp2006-03/dp_x_tokxx_guu_0603_1_e/8; . Read More