Narayan 1

TOK Essay 1/2016

How reliable is reason as a way of knowing in the construction of scientific knowledge?
Anirvin Narayan (01) P7

Narayan 2

Reason can be defined as the act of thinking, understanding and forming

judgements logically, supported by rational arguments. Reason plays an essential role in
our lives as a way of knowing and is beneficial for establishing objective knowledge due to
its certainty, consistency and reliability. These characteristics have made reason a largely
employed way of knowing in the field of natural science due to its objective treatment of
information, independent of human perception. Here, reliability refers to accuracy of a
belief and its correspondence to reality. However, there are flaws that using reason as a
way of knowing might entail, such as confirmation bias and fallacious arguments. Thus,
despite the benefits of reason as an objective way of knowing, it has limitations that may
diminish its reliability in various situations.

One of the most prominent benefits of using reason in various situations is its
certainty in the construction of knowledge, involving the collection of primary data to
predict the future accurately. This is most applicable in the case of inductive and deductive
reasoning which involves making generalisations and inferences based on several
observations, assuming that the premises of both arguments are true. As such, reason
significantly involves generalisation based on a number of samples that provide a similar
outcome, making the conclusion largely reliable.

This can be observed in the procurement of scientific knowledge as a major aspect

of the scientific method which entails formulating scientific laws based on a limited number
of observations. Here, inductive reasoning is employed in the performance of experiments
by independent scientists to prove the scientific theory.

An example of this way of knowing employed famously and successfully in the

world of natural science is that of the discovery of penicillin that has been monumentally

Narayan 3

impactful on worldwide healthcare. In 1928, Sir Alexander Fleming in the process of

examine a collection of staphylococcus bacteria, noticed a mould in some dishes around
which a clear area was present. He made the assumption that chemicals produced by the
mould were responsible for killing the bacteria. Following this, through deductive reasoning
he assumed that a liquid broth infused with the mould would kill the bacteria and one
without any infusion would not. This hypothesis was verified through experimentation
several years later by scientists at the Oxford university who isolated the mould and
concluded that the mould (commonly known as penicillin) was capable of killing bacteria
(Kalvatis).

Deductive reasoning can be observed as Fleming and other scientists progress

from general premises (that chemicals can kill bacteria) to the specificities of penicillins
effect on a singular bacteria. Inductive reasoning is also evident as they use primary data
and multiple premises to verify that their hypothesis is indeed valid. As can be seen,
inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning in the scientific method increase the validity
of the argument, as scientists formulate theories and hypothesis and apply them to specific
situations. This establishes that reason as a way of knowing is generally relabel in natural
science.

Conversely, using reason as a way of knowing in natural science may be

detrimental, due to the presence of deductive and inductive fallacies that compromise its
reliability in a range of situations. In deductive reasoning when the premises are false, the
resulting conclusion may be invalid regardless of its truthfulness. In deductive reasoning,
as explored above, general hypotheses are substantiated by the succeeding observations
and experimentation. However, the reasoning is entirely dependent on the given premises
of the experiment. .

Narayan 4

One such example of fallacious reasoning is that of the highly controversial

scientific report published in 2003 in the International Journal of Toxicology, titled Reduced
mercury levels in first baby haircuts of autistic children (Myths and Legends of Autism:
Part 1). This argument majorly uses deductive reasoning as it progresses from a general
assumption to the specific situation of autistic babies in this case. This can be seen
through the following syllogism:

Mental instability is because of biological damage

Mercury deficiency in the hair has been observed in several autistics
Autism is due to mercury deficiency

Although the conclusion can be considered true based on the given premises, the
claim does not apply to all reasons owing to the lack of mercury or even the autistic
children who did not have a mercury deficiency in their hair. Here, while the logical
reasoning is sound it is not reflective of the truth. Therefore, the presence of this flaw in
using reason as a way of knowing can be detrimental as it may interfere with the validity of
the knowledge claim. Additionally, the argument is driven by the inductive fallacy of post
hoc ergo propter hoc where the author assumes that since there is a mercury deficiency is
autistics it must be causing the mental disability. This example, indicates the possibility that
reason may be unreliable if and when the premises may not be true with the conclusion
being invalid universally.

Another prominent flaw in using reason as a way of knowing to substantiate

knowledge claims is the presence of confirmation biases which may interfere with the
accuracy of the collected data and thus the conclusion. Confirmation bias refers to the
deliberate process of looking only for data that supports the desired conclusion in the face

Narayan 5

of a theoretical barrier (Bias in Science). Here, in the process of justifying a claim through
deductive reasoning which involves collecting data for proving a hypothesis, human desire
to prove the argument may hinder the reliability of the way of knowing.

An example of such flawed logical thinking is that of the water memories experiment
carried out by a French scientist named Jaques Benveniste on the subject of the effect of
histamine reactions. A histamine is a compound which is released by cells in response to
injury and in allergic and inflammatory reactions. Benenviste, ignored the presence of
data that may refute his hypothesis and concluded that the strength of the reaction
increase as the histamine became diluted (Bias in Science). This improbable conclusion
was soon denouncement based on a separate experiment carried that showed that when
the same experiment was performed with blinding (likely double blind) the positive results
were no longer present.

As can be seen here, reason as a way of knowing was ineffective in generating a

valid and certain conclusion, due to the presence of lack of human control. This shows that
the application of reason in natural science does not guarantee certainty as the results can
be distorted by personal views and cultural differences. Hence, the reliability of reason as
a way of knowing is limited. However, this can be countered by taking greater precaution
to avoid human interference by employing blinding in experimentation to facilitate more
accurate data and conclusions.

Notwithstanding its strengths and weaknesses, reason is a cornerstone of human

development with its strengths being essential to several human discoveries in order to
better facilitate the understanding of humanity, especially in the natural sciences.
Therefore, reason despite its weaknesses is beneficial due to its utility. However its

Narayan 6

reliability is greatly questionable due to the loopholes in reasonable arguments. To mitigate

the detrimental effects of the weaknesses of reason, it is important to employ other ways
of knowing such as emotion, imagination and intuition among others, understanding the
limitations reasoning has in justifying a claim in relation to the natural sciences.

Word Count: 1201

Narayan 7

Works Cited

Bias in Science: a sample in the life of a working scientist. indiana.edu. Web. 13 March
2016.

Myths and Legends of Autism: Part 1. photoninthedarkness.blogspot.sg. 24 August 2007.

Web. 28 March 2016.

Kalvaitis, Katie. Penicillin: An accidental discovery changed the course of medicine.

healio.com. Healio. 2008. Web. 30

March 2016.

Van de Lagemaat, Richard. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge, United
Kingdom. Cambridge

University Press. 20 June 2011. Print.