What is the difference between reason and logic? How reliable is inductive reasoning? Are we predictably irrational?
Reason allows us to go beyond the immediate experience of our senses. It is closely linked to logic— the deducing of valid conclusions from given starting points or premises. Human reasoning can also be inferential in nature, allowing conclusions to be drawn that cannot be strictly deduced from their premises. It then becomes an interesting question of whether standards of rationality and norms of reasoning are
Ways of knowing
grounded in culture. Areas of knowledge might set their own requirements for the types of reasoning that are accepted.
Inductive reasoning is the process of supporting general statements by a series of particular ones—the reverse of deductive reasoning which tends to proceed from the general to the particular. Inductive reasoning is by its nature inferential. Statements involving the word “all” are often not strictly provable given the difficulties in making observations of an infinite set of particulars. This is of importance in the natural sciences but also in human sciences such as psychology and economics.
Ways of knowing do not operate in isolation
Ways of knowing should not be viewed in isolation. They interact in various ways in the construction of knowledge and the formation of knowledge claims. For example, even a simple claim such as “this table is blue” involves a number of ways of knowing coming together. I need language to be able to understand the terms “table” and “blue”. I need a conceptual system based on reason to realize that a table is something that has the possibility of being blue. I need sense perception to recognize that what I see is a table and that the colour of the table is blue. In this way, the individual ways of knowing are woven together into more elaborate structures in order to generate knowledge in the areas of knowledge.
Reason allows us to go beyond the immediate experience of our senses. It is closely linked to logic— the deducing of valid conclusions from given starting points or premises. Human reasoning can also be inferential in nature, allowing conclusions to be drawn that cannot be strictly deduced from their premises. It then becomes an interesting question of whether standards of rationality and norms of reasoning are
Ways of knowing
grounded in culture. Areas of knowledge might set their own requirements for the types of reasoning that are accepted.
Inductive reasoning is the process of supporting general statements by a series of particular ones—the reverse of deductive reasoning which tends to proceed from the general to the particular. Inductive reasoning is by its nature inferential. Statements involving the word “all” are often not strictly provable given the difficulties in making observations of an infinite set of particulars. This is of importance in the natural sciences but also in human sciences such as psychology and economics.
Ways of knowing do not operate in isolation
Ways of knowing should not be viewed in isolation. They interact in various ways in the construction of knowledge and the formation of knowledge claims. For example, even a simple claim such as “this table is blue” involves a number of ways of knowing coming together. I need language to be able to understand the terms “table” and “blue”. I need a conceptual system based on reason to realize that a table is something that has the possibility of being blue. I need sense perception to recognize that what I see is a table and that the colour of the table is blue. In this way, the individual ways of knowing are woven together into more elaborate structures in order to generate knowledge in the areas of knowledge.