This undoubtly is the quitessential what the Natural Sciences is based upon. The knowledge is passed down not through belief in something because we have an emotional connection, but more as sense perception. Because of this debate, the claim is born that faith can sometimes be a poor basis of knowledge therefore alot gaps in that area is unreliable due to the connection. However if this is true, why do human beings have to rely on imperical evidence and proof in order to believe something is real? In the Natural Sciences, a strong and accepted theory must contain solid evidence and background information to support the theory, meaning that a strong concept can be falsified.
Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof. The first requirement is that the premises must be different from the conclusion. The second requirement is that the premises must be demonstrated. The third requirement is that the conclusion must follow the premises. Moore also notes that there may other requirements that he does not even know that could be needed to make a proof.
In the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a organization of sense perceptions, then the arguments what are being considered. They lead us to our most logical conclusions, they can never be said to be certain because they are built upon
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
This theory uses inductive reasoning rather than the more common deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is not the sole claim for proving validity. An inductive argument proceeds from a beginning statement to a conclusion. The truth of the initial statement may not imply the truth of the concluding statement only that the concluding statement can be true. Inductive arguments lead attention to specific areas of reality.
The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, what a fact is, and what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true." I agree with the quote cited above as truth for one is not necessary the same for another. However the term must be defined in order to proceed further.
It is commonly believed that human emotions, and gut-feelings/intuition, interfere with rational thinking, and so when making knowledge claims, these passions should be subdued. This idea, although it may sound difficult to achieve, is one which I believe should be implemented and is absolutely justified. In essence, logic and reasoning is much more effective in making/validating knowledge claims than emotion. Foremost, logical thinking is a “system” in the human mind, which, by definition, attempts to find the smartest and most reasonable solution to a problem. Emotions, on the other hand, are instinctive thoughts built into human nature, and rely solely on an individual’s gut-feeling or intuition.
These theories are motivated by diverse concerns and proposed accounts so different from each other that one wonder if they seek to explain the same phenomenon. Coherence theory The coherence theory of truth states that a statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs. This is basically saying that a belief is false if it contradicts other beliefs that are held to be true. The coherence theories in general, states that truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other.
As such it useless by itself because it reasoning only can make decisions based on what the mind considers as practical and sound, (Stewart 433). However if there is no past experiences to draw from, or present perceptions to take in, reasoning what is good or bad cannot be determined. It is the purpose of this essay to highlight the positive and negative aspects of using reasoning as a way of knowing. Reasoning is a good way to make a logical decision as it can be conclusive. Deductive reasoning can be a great example of this conclusiveness.
That has been proved by Einstein. However, two years ago even faster velocity was observed. This makes us question, whether what we know is true- if the theory proves to be wrong, it could be discarded. As it can be seen- If one becomes suspicious, obstacles to accept something as knowledge arise- although we may believe we possess objective facts, from a different perspective gained by progress, such facts become re-interpreted in the light of new evidence, discoveries, technology, or societal trends. So, we cannot completely trust our knowledge.