Rational Criticism - TOK

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Lekha Ravichandran

Class # 3

12/7/08

ESSAY #6: All Knowledge Claims should be Open to Rational Criticism. On What Ground and Extent Do You Agree With This?

If one makes a knowledge claim it has to be true, there must be justification, and he/she must believe it. In order to justify a claim, there must be physical evidence to prove the validity of its truth – and the most logical way to evaluate that is through rational criticism by using reasoning. But one must take into account the many factors that are involved when using reasoning with all knowledge claims since there are limitations that one must bear in mind. All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism, but some only can be achieved to a certain degree since reasoning might be irrelevant depending on the subject matter. There are different ways of using reason to asses or come up with a knowledge claim such as inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning – but one must be aware of the limitations that play into it and the reliability of it. Moreover, there are such things as “bad” reasoning which could lead to false generalizations and fallacies. Therefore, there are many things that one must consider when using rational criticism to judge or justify a knowledge claim – such as the role that logic plays, the ambiguity of language across various cultures, one’s beliefs, and the certainty of the two methods of reasoning.

I believe that most of our knowledge comes from using logic based on the knowledge we already have (which is also known as priori knowledge). Logic is what one uses to judge a knowledge claim through reasoning. Once one has reached a conclusion through logic, it could not be proved otherwise and holds the absolute degree of certainty. For example, if someone says that they need two more pairs of socks, in addition to the pair they already have, in order to have three pairs, they applied logic to reason out their statement and no one can argue with them otherwise. It’s an undeniable fact that with the addition of two more pairs of socks, that person would have a total of three pairs. Hence, one can use rational criticism to reason out this scenario. This type of reasoning is also known as analytic truths. Mathematical truths also come under this category. It is a universally known fact that 1 + 1 = 2. There is no argument to be made to this mathematical statement and it cannot be challenged otherwise. Things which are true by definition, such as “All humans are mammals,” also fall under the category of analytic truths and logic. As it is evident, logic always comes down to necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Nevertheless, not all conditions can be placed under this category and thought out rationally. One cannot always rely on logic to arrive at a knowledge claim. There are instances when logic becomes irrelevant and the matter at hand becomes very subjective. When it comes to art, one can assess and rationally criticize it to a certain extent but beyond that, it really depends on how each individual perceives it. For example, in music, Beethoven’s compositions cannot exactly be rationally clarified. This is because when Beethoven was compiling his music, they were all guided by his emotions and feelings so it’s almost impossible to analyze his pieces objectively. He himself was not aware of how he completed his pieces and did not use self-criticism. Therefore, one’s emotions affect the firmness of reason. This is especially true when it comes to love. Love is one of those situations that people cannot explain in this world. Of course, one can argue against it – but even if rational criticism is used to explain “love”, it would only be relevant to a certain point. The emotional feeling that one experiences is almost unexplainable – so this, and other such circumstances, demonstrate that one cannot discern all knowledge using reason.

Another factor that may affect reasoning would be an individual’s personal beliefs. People argue that religion can neither be justified nor proved false through reasoning. One can maintain that since all knowledge claims can only be justified through physical evidence, and since religious beliefs offer none, it would be reasonable to deny the existence of God. This person may regard those who continue to have religious ideas as having mere beliefs, which are beliefs without any justification. But in response to this case, those who believe in God can assert that their beliefs are established by faith. When one has faith, he/she believes it to be true without doubt – even when there may be no tangible proofs. This perception of what one holds to be true changes the way that he/she might reason, versus someone who refutes it.

The ambiguity of language also creates a discrepancy in relation to the way others perceive things. No knowledge is transmittable without language. Language is a powerful way of giving information – we can use it to make simple classifications, or on the other hand, make too simplistic of a classification. For example, the word “terrorist” and the word “freedom-fighter” may have two entirely different connotations to two different groups of people when referring to the same word or idea – this leads to implication when disputes between the groups arise, which affects the way each one perceives and reasons out the meaning. Messages can also lead to misinterpretation, especially when one is bilingual. When my parents or my family in India talk to me in our native language, Tamil, I tend to translate what they say into English inside my head. When I hear something, I react differently to it if I hear it in Tamil versus English. This could lead to some misunderstanding because the meaning of the phrase in one language is not entirely the same as in another.

Deductive reasoning is going from a general view to a particular idea, whereas inductive reasoning goes from particular to general. Rene Descartes used deduction to prove his existence. His famous quote, “I think, therefore I am,” sums up his reasoning. The fact that he thinks cannot be doubted, and therefore his reasoning preserves truth. The inductive method is a lot more informative, but has less certainty than deductive reasoning. “Scientists create scientific laws by observing a number of phenomena, finding similarities and deriving a law which explains all things. A good scientific law is highly generalized and may be applied in many situations to explain other phenomena. For example the laws of gravity were used to predict the movement of the planets.”1 This depicts the essence of reasoning using logic and rational criticism. But one cannot always solely rely on inductive reasoning. This is because, in the case of insufficient evidence, people tend to make informal reasoning – which leads to fallacies. Fallacies, such as hasty generalizations, can be misleading. Hasty generalizations are due to four main reasons: ignorance, laziness, pride, and prejudice. All these factors cause “bad” reasoning and limit our reliability of using inductive reasoning for rational criticism.

Any claim to knowledge must be shown to be a justified true belief. Rational criticism can be used to a certain extent when trying to reason out knowledge claims. As it is evident, there are both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to using logic and rationalism to justify the “truth” of a belief. An individual’s belief and their cultural background play a major role in relation to how he/she rationalizes and views a circumstance using their reason. Most situations in the world can be evaluated by means of reasoning, but there are also numerous other incidents when reasoning is not always relevant. There are some ideas in this world, gained through logic, which no one can argue against or deny. But one must be careful of when to use reason and to what extent because it could lead to “bad” reasoning and it may not even be applicable to the topic at hand.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: