Homeworkkkkk.

Should all knowledge claims be open to rational criticism? To answer this fully one has to not only explore the ways of knowing, but decide in which situations criticism can occur. Knowledge can be flawed, and the ways which you come about this knowledge are typically the main reason as to why. To say you know something for certain has the potential to end with a debate based on whether the knowledge you have is correct. One comes to know through their senses, perception, reason, emotion and language. Each of these ways of knowing have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why the majority of knowledge should be open to criticism. However, it could be said that there are some situations where knowledge should not be allowed to be criticized.

What are some ways of knowing? Senses are likely to be different for every person. For example, the smell that one person likes another person may hate. This love or hate may come from past experiences, but it is more likely to be the chemical makeup of the scent. It's this that makes someone either go “that’s nice” or “that’s not nice.” There are more strengths than weaknesses when it comes to knowing something by your senses. To me, sense is the best way of knowing as it is interchangeable between people, and you can be generally sure that the knowledge that is gained by senses is true. Taking the example of scent further, to say that you like the smell of roses is a certain fact. The way which you have gained this fact makes it not really open for criticism. It is true, however, that people may argue that this is incorrect -you cannot be sure that you like the smell of all roses as you have not smelled all the roses in the world. In this situation though I think it is pedantic to criticise the statement.

Reason is a rather loose way of knowing. To know something by authority is commonly criticized in modern society. How often have you yourself heard someone say “so and so said it is so it must be true”? How many times have you then looked into it further, and it turns out that the “so and so” had no relation to what “it” is? This is better explained in the example of an English teacher telling a calculus student how to do a problem. Although the English teacher may have an idea, possibly having studied calculus before, they really aren’t specialized enough in the area to fully help the student. Even though the English teacher could be showing the student the correct means to solving the problem, this is a mere small scale example. In larger scale situations, the means of knowledge by authority can become much more controversial.

Finally, faith is another time when knowledge can become criticizable. Although it is rather insolent to criticize the beliefs of a religion, and doing so has the potential to cause conflict, it can be done. Scientists disprove some of the beliefs in religion regularly. It can be debated , however, that science cannot prove everything, which is why religion still remains. The exact same could be said for superstitions.

In conclusion, it is my belief that all knowledge can be rationally criticized. However, whether all knowledge is open to this rational criticism is a different matter. This would depend on the culture of the location you are in, and specifically what you believe about the knowledge. Therefore, there cannot truly be any answer to the question "should all knowledge claims be open to rational criticism?" as it cannot be answered - there are simply always going to be different views on it. This is why it’s probably best to just not criticize certain pieces of “knowledge”, in the better interest of any parties involved.

The Yummy Chocolate Delema.

“We see and understand things not as they are but as we are.”

This quote is definitely one that makes your head explode a little. We all know about personal biases and the way that our past has shaped who we are, but when do we really take the time to sit back and think about them? When I see a piece of chocolate I immediately think "Ohh, yummy!". But I never look at a piece of chocolate and go "Ohh, that look's yummy to me, but it might not be yummy to another person. Maybe to the person sitting next to me it's a death wish (they could be allergic to chocolate) or maybe it's something they've been told to stay away from (they could be on a diet)."

The reason the chocolate is looks yummy to me is because of the way I am, not because of the way the chocolate is. The chocolate looks yummy to me because I like chocolate, because chocolate doesn't really harm me, and because I've eaten chocolate before and decided it was yummy. But, the chocolate isn't yummy to everyone and so I am seeing the chocolate as I would like to see it, not as it really is.