On the other hand, inductive reasoning is the practice of drawing general conclusions from several specific observations. This is in accordance to the assumption that since something has happened often in the past, the likelihood of it happening again is high. Consistency in these observations is believed to be sufficient enough to confirm knowledge claims. However, it can be objectionable to generalize a conclusion from such events just because they have happened a number of times, as these conclusions can be dubious and contrary to finding reliable knowledge. Suppose you received a pay raise last year and you have been receiving similar pay raises in the last five years. Using induction, you would assume that you would be receiving a pay raise this year as well. However, this conclusion is questionable as external factors can affect this outcome. If, for example, there is a recession in the country, economist would argue against this conclusion as the likelihood for a pay raise in this situation would be very low.
Despite its flaws, reason allows you to arrive at knowledge that is certain. For example, reason plays an important role in the formation of knowledge in mathematics. Mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships between numbers and shapes. In this area of knowledge, one begins with certain established assumptions, axioms, and approaches the problem rationally to obtain results in the form of theorems. The theorems are considered certain after proof is provided to justify the proposed theorem with the reference to the axiom. In fact, philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that “mathematics claimed the most resplendent example of pure reason happily expanding itself without assistance from experience”. This is true to a certain extent as mathematical equations, once proven, are indisputable. For example, 0 X 3 = 0 and this is a proven fact in any case as the theory that any number multiplied by 0 is also 0 exists to support this truth. This clearly illustrates the strength of reason in delivering solid results in mathematics. Thus, a strength of reason is that it aids in the acquiring of stable and certain facts.
Conversely, one weakness of reason is that it can result in the construction of two equally valid arguments which conflict each other and, therefore, cannot arrive at a certain conclusion. This is most evident in ethics. In justifying an act as moral or immoral, one goes through the process of considering evidence and agreeing on principles to attain a moral conclusion. If we were to consider the statement “animal experimentation is wrong”, we would then have to find other statements like “animals are capable of feeling pain” or “the lives of all living things are sacred” to support our ethical argument. Since the foundation of ethical arguments is the premises formed based on principles, reason can be used to use logical evidence in the premises to rebuke or accept ethical beliefs. In contrary, British empiricist David Hume argues that “reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals”. Such parties believe that we cannot reduce morals to deductive arguments or to merely access ethical arguments based on general principles due to their complexity. In fact, most of the principles that support the premises of ethical arguments are based on one’s own moral beliefs of what is right or wrong. In this case, reason lacks power in settling ethical arguments as it neglects this difference in opinions and beliefs, which affect the way in which people come up with logical conclusions. In the case of animal experimentation again, parties who do not agree with the premise “the lives of all living things are sacred” would disagree with the conclusion that “animal experimentation is wrong” and consider it unreasonable. Thus, one’s own emotions and biases towards any given subject affect the formation of valid conclusions in ethics and we cannot solely rely on reason alone, as it might not produce certain conclusions.
Another weakness of reason is that it alone is not enough to construct meaningful knowledge. For instance, art is a subjective area of knowledge where emotions tend to play a bigger role than reason in deciding what we know. Although reason allows us to interpret and breakdown the image we see before us, our emotions are more effective in processing our perceptions of artworks and crafting thoughts and responses with regards to se artworks. It is because art is so subjective that our emotions are allowed to help us form knowledge on our own which we can consider true. For instance, if by reasoning one concludes that a certain song is about heartache due to its lyrics, such a conclusion can be easily rejected if the tempo of the song makes another person feel uplifted and happy. This person’s emotional response to the song created meaning in his mind which becomes his own knowledge. One’s knowledge of art can be impossible to rebuke because it is a personal interpretation and can be justified in its own way. Therefore, reason is weaker than emotion as a way of knowing in art as the former cannot provoke the same level of response to an artwork and is limited to the facts on the surface. As such, reason is sometimes not as effective on its own as a way of knowing.
In conclusion, although reason shows us how to proceed with the given knowledge and corrects errors in conclusions in order to achieve more comprehensive insights, it is not the strongest way of knowing. Reason neglects the personal opinions of the person proposing premises of an argument which impacts its ability to attain sound and certain conclusions in ethical arguments. Also, the strength of reason as an independent way of knowing is limited, as there is a need for it to work in conjunction with the other ways of knowing namely sense perception, emotion and language, in order to fully construct and justify knowledge. Thus, reason is not infallible, but it does have its strengths as a way of knowing by using logic to determine which conclusions are valid and sound.
Bibliography
Non-print Resources:
1. Feyerabend, Paul. "Consolations for the Specialist." Paul Feyerabend. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://www.philosophy.ru/edu/ref/sci/feyer.html>.
2. Markie, Peter. "Rationalism vs. Empiricism." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Standford University, 6 Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>.
3. Richards, Joan L. "Connecting Mathematics with Reason." Augustus De Morgan, the History of Mathematics, and the Foundations of Algebra (1987). Web. 12 Mar. 2012. <http://www.maa.org/ql/031-36.pdf>.
4. Williams, Garrath. "Kant's Account of Reason." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Standford University, 12 May 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/>.
Books:
1. Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: Hodder Murray, 2006. Print.
2. Dombrowski, Eileen, Lena Rotenberg, Mimi Bick, and Richard Van De. Lagemaat. Theory of Knowledge: Course Companion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
