Although both the empiricists and rationalist both came to the same problem how could we ever know anything outside of our own perceptions. The rationalists believed in a priori knowledge, knowledge that is innate that you come into this world with. It is gives you the ability to use rational thought and reason to gain
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ‘Nature, by an absolute and uncontrollable necessity has determined us to judge as well as to breathe and feel’ Although many modern commentators have demurred from Hume's views, some have notably concurred with it, seeing his analysis of our epistemic predicament as a major contribution to the theory of knowledge. In ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume tries to explain the problem of induction by humans. Hume distinguishes between impressions and ideas; he says that impressions are sensory impressions, emotions, and other vivid mental phenomena. Ideas are thoughts or beliefs or memories related to these impressions. According to Hume we build up all our ideas from simple impressions by means of three laws of association: Resemblance, Contiguity, & Cause and Effect.
How do we know things? There are different ways of knowing; through emotions, feelings, sense perceptions etc. We use logic, deduction, and induction, to reach conclusions we think are true. Conclusions reached in this way are considered more certain than sense perceptions on their own. 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.
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.
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.
Do you often rank-order the items on your to-do list? Do you find yourself sometimes identifying flaws in someone else's reasoning? If these statements describe you, then you have a tendency toward being a logical learner. A person with a logical learning style may often say these phrases: * Now that really seems logical. * It just makes sense to me.
This leaves them unable to detect their own bias, and unable to be objective. In “Learning to Read” by Malcolm X and “Idiot Nation” by Michael Moore, the authors’ writings demonstrate that they are indeed knowledgeable, but are also subjective on the topics that they discuss. When reading the essays of Malcolm X and Michael Moore, a perceptive reader can easily identify their biases which are illustrated throughout their work in the forms of inflammatory remarks, contradictory statements, and or, one-sided evidence. Inflammatory remarks are inimical and signal an author’s bias. By utilizing demeaning language, such as racial epithets, in an effort to draw support and substantiate beliefs, a writer alienates his audience and draws attention to whom or what his biases are against.
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.
In other words, though critical thinking principles are universal, their application to disciplines requires a process of reflective contextualization. Critical thinking is considered important in the academic fields because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure their thinking, thereby decreasing the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief. However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because of character traits such as egocentrism. Critical thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given research in cognitive psychology, some educators believe that schools should focus on teaching their students critical thinking skills and cultivation of intellectual traits.
It does not mean that now we have to reject the idea of all inductive reasoning. Sometimes it seems to work and sometimes it does not. We just have to be able to distinguish the good from bad. At the contrast deductive reasoning allows us to deduce a conclusion