ToK Prescribed Titles (2010) Question 6

All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. On what grounds and to what extent would you agree with this assertion?

The essence of the Q: The Q reminds us of Socrates' saying: 'The unexamined life is not worth living.' What did he mean? Should we question everything, even at the expense of our own personal (and social) happiness and sanity? The openness of the Q allows you to look at numerous knowledge claims (make a list in advance) and what they attempt to establish. At first glance, wouldn't we tend to agree with the assertion? Surely, everything is open to critical questioning: we like to be certain about things and get to the truth of them. However, is reason the best method for reaching the truth of knowledge claims? Looking closer, you'll see that there are lots of things to ask yourselves. First, is the main assertion itself a knowledge claim and thereby open to rational criticism? Why? Second, what is the actual status of the assertion (think about the word 'should')? How does this affect our judgement? Finally, what does it mean to be 'rational' and what does 'criticism' involve? Presumably 'rational criticism' means to test all knowledge claims against the rigour of logic, giving grounds or reasons for the knowledge claims; that is, you will have to look at which claims are made through inductive reasoning and which through deductive (please don't simply re-gurgitate class notes!). The focus of the question is undoubtedly on the value of reason as a WoK, but you will need to look at how the other WoKs might be involved in any inductive or deductive process to establish the truth of knowledge claims. Look at the problem of induction and Popper's attempt to solve it.


Knowledge issues: Is reason alone the most reliable test for the truth of knowledge claims? Are the searches for truth and happiness mutually exclusive? Does rational criticism involve the sacrifice of emotion? Can subjective knowledge claims as in the Arts and Ethics ever be rationally criticised? What would a non-rational criticism of a knowledge claim look like? Must all knowledge claims have rational grounds for us to believe in them? In what way are inductive arguments driven by the human tendency to stereotype people? How and under what circumstances do we rationalise situations to our own advantage?

Approaches: Take different knowledge claims from each AoK and attempt to test them: which ones have good reasons to believe in them? Which ones do we believe without any rational grounds (and why)? Which ones are based on inductive arguments and which on deductive? Does the reasoning involve any logical fallacies? Try to choose knowledge claims from contemporary life, such as the Pope's recent statements the 'ecology of man' (why did the gay community get offended?); Bush's statements about sustaining the 'war on terror' (how did these serve to provide a smokescreen to carry out a personal agenda?) or the media's ongoing statements about the present financial crisis (how do these help to solve the crisis?)...You can take statements about historical events or even claims that purport to make knowledgeable statements about the future. Look at ethical statements - we should give a life ban to any sportsperson who takes drugs - is this open to rational criticism? Why? Mathematical knowledge claims are surely watertight - that is, once established, they are unquestionable: the internal angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees. Aesthetic statements are, however, beyond rational criticism, aren't they, since they are always based on personal opinion or taste (think about this!)? Is there any difference in the grounds given for knowledge claims in the Natural Sciences and those in the Human Sciences? Compare: 'Human creation and development can be explained by evolutionary genetic theory' and 'Eight out of ten men consider a sense of humour as the essential quality in an ideal partner'. Lastly, consider the status of knowledge claims about the supernatural: how far do these stand up to rational criticism?