Free Essays - Philosophy Essays
Reason Knowing Arguments
Tok essay
“Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of reason as a way of knowing”
There are four main ways of knowing, and reasoning is one of them. Reason- refers to the collective endeavor by which people construct meaning together by exchanging, modifying and improving their ideas and opinions¹. When someone makes a claim to know, it is legitimate to ask for reasons and to expect that these will be coherent. Arguments require consistency; the sense that they follow a pattern which fits with the experience of the individual. In this essay I look into the strengths and weaknesses of reasoning as applied to two different areas of knowledge, namely; human sciences and ethics.
When speaking of reasoning we must link this to logic; Logic is a study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. It is supposed to explicate the laws of ones thought. Formally it deals with the notion of truth in an abstract sense and is concerned with the principles of valid inferencing.²
Get help with your essay from our expert essay writers...In logic we refer to the two main methods of reasoning as deduction and induction. Going in deeper we can say that logic is directly related with arguments. An argument is any group of propositions of which one (the conclusion) is claimed to follow from the others (the premises)³. The group of propositions provides support or grounds for the truth of the conclusion. In logic, the point is to find whether or not the premises can justify the conclusion in an argument.
A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow its premises with absolute necessity. When the reasoning in a deductive argument is correct, then that argument is said to be valid. Logically speaking when the reasoning in a deductive argument is incorrect, then that argument is said to be invalid. An example of a valid deductive argument is:
Conclusion
Premises
- Therefore Jean-Marc likes watching soccer
- All boys like watching soccer.
- Jean-marc is a boy
Example A
_______________________________________________________________________
¹ International Baccalaureate Organization, 2006
² http://www.cse.iitd.ernet.in/~saroj/L2_prop.pdf
³ http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/arguments.html
Argument: If Jean-Marc is a boy then he likes watching soccer. The argument is valid because the conclusion necessarily has to follow the premises. The strengths of deductive reasoning is that there is often no need to prove the premises. These are assumed to have been tested and are taken for granted to be true. Secondly, there may be a set of already set up pattern of reasoning. Every time the problem arises, the same sequence of the government can be used to analyze the problem. It allows problems to be analyzed quickly and many sequences to be linked together. Thus complex models of solutions have been proposed. In human sciences, for example in economics, a problem can be analyzed from different perspectives and have different solutions prescribed to different solutions. For example, inflation can have many causes and many solutions.
An inductive argument works the other way. It moves from specific observations to broader generalizations of theories. That is, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises, but that can probably be the case. This can be shown using an example; we are observing the cliental of a Louis Vuitton store.
Example B
Premises
-the first customer is a woman specific observations
-the second customer is a woman patterns of customers observed
-the third customer is a woman
-the fourth customer is a woman
Conclusion
Therefore, all customers coming to Louis Vuitton are woman.
The conclusion reached is only true for the first four customers observed. Hence inductive arguments differ from deductive arguments in the sense that a conclusion drawn from deductive arguments must follow the premises, but a conclusion drawn from inductive arguments, can only be reached to a certain probability.
In life, there are many areas where reasoning plays a predominant role in gaining knowledge. Much of the knowledge that we have acquired is justified by the means of reasoning or logical arguments, based on previously acquired knowledge. Logic and reasoning is very important when one has to make a decision. This can be shown with the help of an example. If Bobby claims to have certain general beliefs, but his particular actions are logically inconsistent with those, then we would be right not to accept his beliefs and not to trust him. When we take and make a decision we should be making the correct reasoning. The need for the correct reasoning and for the construction of valid arguments is fundamental to all thinking. All reasoning by people tend to be logical. To conclude this point brought forward, one may say that reasoning plays a principal role in gaining knowledge when one has to take decisions. Reasoning influences people in taking decisions. If a person goes to a bank to take a loan, and finds the interest rates not rational and logic he will certainly not take a loan over there. However if he comes to a correct reasoning about the interest rates set by the bank he will take his loan. By seeing this we can see that reasoning is the key part that helps us humans in taking what is said to be the “correct” or “most ethical” decision. The two main important areas of knowledge where reason plays a predominant role are mathematics and human sciences; this is so because theories have been established for these subjects that are based on facts.
I will now explore the weaknesses of reasoning as a way of knowing. Although reasoning seems culture free and stands as a logical flow of ideas, in fact it may not be so. Logical reasoning claims to be value free, however this may not be so. We will be looking into the emotional way of knowing, the emotional reasoning of a person. Emotional reasoning refers to a cognitive error whereby a person who is nervous or anxious resorts to emotional reactions to determine a course of action¹. Gary is going for his license practical test. Gary has been practicing for two months with a driving school instructor, the instructor dubbed Gary to pass the test with ease due to his good driving skills. On the day of his test he is stressed out and anxious, he is now in doubt that he will pass the test. Thus he creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. In this way, emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. Another area of knowledge where reasoning might be more important is when we compare it to sense perception. If a person not knowing how to swim wants to go for a swim, but does not know the depth of the sea. He cannot dive in the water and see how deep the sea is because it might be dangerous if it is too deep and will be putting his life at risk. A person with a logical reasoning would know that the sea is deep and would not risk diving into the water. Hence we can say that in this situation the main way of knowing to be used will be reasoning. The person must master knowing the apparent and the real depth of the sea in order not to be deceived.
Nevertheless on the other hand we can say that reasoning may not be the best way of knowing due to the fact that it has some limitations. One of these limitations states that at times reasoning can be based on a culture or a personal experience. In today’s world there are many different cultures. One will know that sooner or later there will be clashes due to the fact of differentiation. Everyone will have a different point of view for the simple reason that beliefs and moral values set by their culture differ from one to the other. Some logical arguments set by a culture A can be seen invalid by culture B. The people originating from the Spanish culture accept and practice bullfighting as a sport. However people with an English origin might see this as unethical or immoral due to the fact animals lives are at stake. Activists such as animal right and different cultures across the world might not accept this sport due to their differentiation in reasoning.
Inductive arguments are assessed in terms of varying degrees of strength.
A strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true. A weak inductive argument is an argument such that even if the premises are true, the conclusion is not likely to be true. There are various degrees of strength and weakness which express a somewhat subjective opinion of how well the argument’s premises logically support the conclusion. Such assessments are based on the standards for assessing the specific type of argument and the better the argument succeeds at meeting the standards, the stronger the argument. The worse it fails, the
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning
weaker the argument. Therefore the conclusion drawn can easily be true or false, and the inductive logic does not give us a strong conclusion. In both of these examples (Example A and Example B) of weak induction, the logical means of connecting the premise and conclusion (with the word "therefore") are faulty, and do not give us a strong inductively reasoned statement.
To conclude we may see that reasoning is the most common and important way of knowing, however me must always bear in mind that even the best inductive argument involves the element of risk. No matter how true the premises of an inductive argument may be, no matter how perfect its inference may be. Its conclusion is not guaranteed to be 100% true and definite
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
