Connections to AOKs
Reason and the natural sciences
One thing all natural sciences have in common is that the extract knowledge based on the scientific method. Galileo’s reliance on empirical knowledge led Europe into the Enlightenment, and established the scientific method, which is still regarded as the only satisfactory approach when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge about the natural world. As Feynman says, observation, reason and experiment make up what we call the scientific method.
|
The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis: a statement that can (potentially) be falsified. If it’s not (potentially) falsifiable or replicable, then it isn’t scientific, and belongs to some other field (according to Karl Popper). By replicating the experiment, collecting data and observing the outcome we can reach a conclusion by using induction, this is also known as scientific reasoning. By using scientific reasoning Aristotle’s hypothesis established around 330 BC, about the Earth being spherical instead of flat was proven 2000 years later by an experiment designed to measure the distance to the horizon by using a small boat. So simply by applying reason, science proved that the Earth is spherical and not flat and hence disproved a hypothesis, which had been considered truth for thousands of years. The above example shows reason plays a key role in extracting knowledge in the natural sciences, everything is correct until proven wrong by using data, observation and inductive reasoning.
Reason and ethics
Think about this scenario; a woman is pregnant but her pregnancy is going to kill the mother. In this situation, is the life of the mother more valuable than the baby’s life? Does it then mean that the destruction of valuable things are morally wrong? Conversely, others who oppose abortion will argue that the baby is alive and therefore the life of the baby is of as much value as the mother's. If you have already noticed, these opposing premises can keep on going infinitely. It is important to realize that our premises will be reasonable depending on our own point of view. You might find something reasonable while your friend disagrees. Our premises influence whether what we think is right or wrong to a great extent.
|
Reason and religion
Religion can help us understand why we do certain things, how we perceive life including the world – and therefore play a role in how we reason. Muslims have different views on life compared to Christians, Jews or Hindus, which is why we don’t always agree with everyone in life. Terror attacks often have either political or religious agendas. An example is the 9/11 event in New York, USA, where Islamic hijackers steered two planes into the World Trade Center, causing the deaths of thousands of people. Because of the religious beliefs and extremist minds, it made sense to the terrorists to act like they did, and it is quite common that the terrorists say they felt like they had no other choice and couldn’t reach their objective in any other way.
|
Reason and the human sciences
The human sciences including sciences like psychology, sociology and economics, are the sciences concerning the human being as a conscious individual, making conscious choices.
In these sciences, let’s take economics as an example, the overall goal is to analyze human behavior and therefore predict how we will behave in the future. Through statistics, economists analyze, graph and conclude what the most probable outcome of a given situation will be, and will therefore be able to predict the outcome of an upcoming situation from the previous conclusion. It can therefore be said that the human sciences gain knowledge from reason to a large extent. But how good is the reasoning done in the human sciences? Economics would be considered extremely accurate, if every person on earth always behaved rationally, and made rational choices, i.e. being a homo economicus. Unfortunately, the truth is much more complicated than what an economist would deliberate. Human beings make irrational choices more or less all the time, and it is impossible to take those choices into consideration when predicting behavior. Economists therefore tend to make logical fallacies like false dichotomy or no true Scotsman in order to make their predictions seem true.
It can be concluded that the knowledge created by reason in the human sciences are different than for example the knowledge created in the natural sciences. In the human sciences, scientists often use deductive reasoning in order to interpret qualitative data into saying something specific about humanity, where natural scientists tend to use inductive reasoning.
In these sciences, let’s take economics as an example, the overall goal is to analyze human behavior and therefore predict how we will behave in the future. Through statistics, economists analyze, graph and conclude what the most probable outcome of a given situation will be, and will therefore be able to predict the outcome of an upcoming situation from the previous conclusion. It can therefore be said that the human sciences gain knowledge from reason to a large extent. But how good is the reasoning done in the human sciences? Economics would be considered extremely accurate, if every person on earth always behaved rationally, and made rational choices, i.e. being a homo economicus. Unfortunately, the truth is much more complicated than what an economist would deliberate. Human beings make irrational choices more or less all the time, and it is impossible to take those choices into consideration when predicting behavior. Economists therefore tend to make logical fallacies like false dichotomy or no true Scotsman in order to make their predictions seem true.
It can be concluded that the knowledge created by reason in the human sciences are different than for example the knowledge created in the natural sciences. In the human sciences, scientists often use deductive reasoning in order to interpret qualitative data into saying something specific about humanity, where natural scientists tend to use inductive reasoning.
Bibliography
Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge Third Edition. Hodder Education, 2014. Print.
"Theory of Knowledge - Theoryofknowledge.net." Accessed 11 June 2015. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net
"Theory of Knowledge - Theoryofknowledge.net." Accessed 11 June 2015. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net
Juliane T. |
Michelle L. |
Bellal A. |
Frederik M. |
Tiago S. |