Dylan Djani

Theory of Knowledge

Prescribed Essay

All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. On what grounds and to what extent

would you agree with this assertion?

Based on observations and personal opinion, I would agree with the assertion that all

knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism to the fullest extent because a claim to

knowledge does not guarantee knowledge, and in order to be able to obtain coherent knowledge

of everything, one has to consider all aspects of everything, which is only able to be done by

being open to logical reasoning. However, being fully open towards rational criticism does not

mean that one must continuously change and adapt his claim of knowledge to match the rational

criticism, but rather be open to the criticism in case the reasoning does have an effect on the

claim of knowledge. For more concrete areas of knowledge, namely mathematics and the natural

sciences, being fully open to rational criticism has proven successful in multiple instances in the

past. In other areas of knowledge, such as religion and ethics, rational criticism is important in

that the reasoning allows humans to analyze situations logically and to assess and evaluate

knowledge claims within their areas of knowledge. Although, with less concrete areas of

knowledge, other ways of knowing, namely language, perception, and emotion, definitely have

their place during the evaluation of claims of knowledge. Basically, in order to evaluate a

knowledge claim, one must be open to reason and rational criticism, as reason is an important

way of knowing that can further one’s knowledge; however, this is not because reason is a better

way of knowing than the rest, but rather because reason is a better way of knowing for specific

areas of knowledge and is an important way to gather knowledge, as are the other ways of

knowing.

Areas of knowledge such as mathematics and natural sciences are at one extreme and are

very concrete with knowledge claims, which make rational criticism extremely viable when

these areas of knowledge are in question. Since the nature of knowledge claims from such areas

of knowledge are concrete and clear, such as the axioms of Euclidean and Riemannian geometry,

ways of knowing such as emotion will not further one’s knowledge about the topic area.

Language and perception are important as well for explaining and understanding knowledge

claims from these areas of knowledge; however, reason is the only way of knowing that

appropriately validates these knowledge claims. Going further with the Euclidean and

Riemannian geometry, language and perception are clearly required in order to understand how

the axioms in each type of geometry relate to each other to create a consistent geometric system.

However, reason is the way of knowing that one uses to evaluate each geometric system for

consistency and ensure there are no contradictions within the axioms. Emotion has no role in

such concrete claims of knowledge because it cannot be used to determine whether or not

mathematical and scientific knowledge claims make sense and are coherent with the current

body of mathematic and scientific knowledge. Riemannian geometry grew out of rational

criticism of Euclidean geometry because Riemann was curious as to whether or not changing

Euclid’s axioms could result in another geometric system, and Riemannian geometry was the

result. Riemannian geometry works when considering a sphere, such as the Earth’s surface, and

is actually a better description of reality than Euclidean geometry, which shows the benefits of

rational criticism.

Human sciences, such as psychology and economics, should also be open to rational

criticism for similar reasons as mathematics and natural sciences should. Human sciences are in

between concrete areas of knowledge and another extreme and are by nature more subjective

than mathematics and natural sciences because humans tend to act in a random manner, as

opposed to in a clear-cut, ordered format. Although natural sciences and human sciences both

have common problems that must be avoided, such as experimenter and observer bias, human

sciences have a higher chance of not overcoming the problems because humans are involved in

the experiments, as opposed to solely being experimenters. In natural sciences, this is not the

case, and problems such as the Hawthorne effect, where the subjects of an experiment

temporarily change their behavior due to the fact that the experimenter is watching them. Due to

the higher chance of subjectivity of human sciences, claims of knowledge from human sciences

should be even more open to rational criticism than those from mathematics and natural sciences

in order to ensure that the knowledge claims are in fact correct and appropriate. For example, if

a study is done on high school students to determine whether or not music helps the students

learn, the students might act different just because they are aware that they are participating in an

experiment, whereas a study of how quickly birds breed in different lightings would not need to

deal with such random variables. The principle of using rational criticism is the same for human

sciences as for mathematics and natural sciences, but the extent to which the principle is

necessary is greater for human sciences due to the greater chance of subjectivity for such areas of

knowledge.

At the other extreme of areas of knowledge lay those such as ethics and religion.

Knowledge claims from these areas of knowledge are usually subject to severe rational criticism,

at the complaint of the one who is claiming the knowledge. These areas of knowledge are

extremely subjective when compared to the rest because nobody can say for sure what the

absolute truth is regarding ethics or religion. Even though such areas of knowledge are

extremely subjective, they should also be open to rational criticism. Regarding ethics there are

multiple accepted models, each with certain flaws, just as there are multiple religions throughout

the world. Similar to all of the other areas of knowledge, rational criticism is useful for

determining whether or not a claim of knowledge from the extremely subjective areas of

knowledge has any actual value or meaning. For example, if a teenager from Australia comes up

with a new religion that involves worshipping crystals because he claims to have been contacted

by a god, reason tells us that the claim has no value and is meaningless. However, unlike the

other areas of knowledge, namely the ones outside of the “extremely subjective” category, these

areas of knowledge require other ways of knowing to a far greater extent than the rest. Emotion

as a way of knowing is, for example, integral to anybody to believes in and practices a certain

religion. Emotion is also important when considering the various models for ethics: although

each model of ethics might make sense rationally, some might emotionally feel wrong, which

shows the need of emotion in such subjective areas of knowledge. Extremely subjective areas of

knowledge should be open to rational criticism, as all areas of knowledge, but depend on other

ways of knowing more so than the less subjective areas of knowing.

All areas of knowledge should be open to rational criticism, but should not change to fix

the criticized problems. Areas of knowledge can be subdivided into groups based on their

subjectivity in order to analyze the dependency on other ways of knowing besides reason: the

less subjective areas of knowledge, such as mathematics and natural sciences, do not depend on

emotion as much as the extremely subjective areas of knowledge, such as ethics and religion. In

between these two groups lie areas of knowledge such as human sciences, which are more

subjective than natural sciences and mathematics, but not nearly as subjective as ethics or

religion. As the areas of knowledge become more subjective, the necessity for other ways of

knowing increase; however, claims of knowledge from each area of knowledge should still be

open to rational criticism. By listening to rational criticism, the chances of a bad occurrence are

zero, but the chances of a good occurrence exist, such as with Euclidean versus Riemannian

geometry. Due to this, every area of knowledge should be open towards rational criticism.