While logic is firmly rooted in reason, perceptions are just as firmly rooted in one’s senses and can easily be corrupted. Many kinds of faulty logic or perception interfere with our ability to think critically, for example, superstition, argument from ignorance, false analogies, irrelevant comparison and fallacies. Therefore, I believe that perception is certainly not reality and most mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logics. Perception is defined as the ability to see, hear or becomes aware of something through the senses (Nature of Logic and Perception). However, since the senses are susceptible to personal interpretation, they are therefore potentially unreliable sources of data.
There is no way to know everything there is to know. This means that knowledge will always be inherently limited by numerous different factors. According to DesCartes, knowing can only be applied to what one has clearly observed to be true (111). Observable knowledge can be limited by things such as background and sex. However, the greatest limitation may be lack of skepticism, whether it be questioning oneself or an authority.
He considered that the people must use logical and reasonable thinking because they have the capability to think in logical way. “RENE DESCARTES” He published a book in which he said that in order to discover the truth of the sciences, there has to be a need of the reasons and the mathematics. Descartes was the founder or he invented the basic laws in the mathematical formulating which control all the movements of the things. And then finally he discovered the new type of mathematics that is called the ANALYTIC GEOMETRY. The ideas of the FRANCIS BACON and RENE DESCARTES led to the development of the “SCIENTIFIC METHOD”.
However, this position does not give an answer to the question that how we can make inferences from various individual cases without any satisfying standards for measure them. In connection with this, unfortunately, it does not explain either how we can assume that we have the knowledge in the first place. It ignores this problem and treats the knowledge as a collection of particularities that are compatible with each other. In this manner, the thing that particularism do seems like just begging the question. Basically, it suggests that we have to be satisfied with this necessary but not sufficient type of understanding what knowledge is and its criteria are.
Even credible sources such as the “New English Dictionary” present unclear definitions of happiness. Another major problem with this task is that happiness describes a range of concepts and as a result finding one precise way to describe contentment is challenging. Kingwell brings up the point that in order to competently define happiness multiple sentences are necessary as one sentence is simply too brief to thoroughly define the word.
However, due to it being based on a solid system of numbers, theories and evidence, it does not provide room for human opinions and justifications. This could be due to the fact that it only abides by its fixed set of principles. As proof refers to ‘an argument, which convinces other people that something is true.’ (Michael Hutchings, Introduction to mathematical arguments, 1) Therefore, belief holds a lower rank as compared to proof. This will be further elaborated through the examples of conjectures, axioms and
Logical fallacy means an error of reasoning. The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others and to avoid them in one’s own argument, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. Fallacies are categorized as: formal, informal, logical and factual. Each group of fallacies contain sub-categories of the different forms of that type of fallacy.
Existentialism The concept of existentialism has so many contradicting and difficult to grasp components that it is much easier to put in terms of philosophy at its most fundamental. Synonyms of philosophy include: thinking and reasoning, namely the understanding of nature and existence of a person. Although several versions of existentialism exist, there are no set themes that could possibly encompass them all. This philosophy is valid to an individualistic level, however, it does not hold up to modern society as a whole. The argument that each individual is defined by their own notable path is perfectly concrete.
This, however, cannot be done with every piece of information we acquire since it is not humanly possible. Memory therefore proves to be a untrustworthy way of knowing that can only be trusted in very specific cases like the ones pointed out previously. Historians always try to get the most unbiased and true information possible in order for them to then share their knowledge, but this is only viable to a certain limited point. A solution to this everlasting limitation is receiving information from as many sources as possible and then coming out with one’s own conclusions. Doing so might not conserve the truth in historical information, but it is the closest we can get to acquiring knowledge through the use of
It was like the author was trying too hard for this book to be fun and light and cute... but it just seemed silly and poorly written. I hate saying things like this, but when it becomes that big of an issue for me I have to point it out. Also, all of Braswell 's characters, both the old and the new, had one major flaw: lack of characterization. It 's as if Braswell expected the reader to use and be satisfied with prior knowledge. I was not satisfied.