“No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWhen we refer to reason as a way of knowing, it makes me think about how this allows us to support our thoughts, decisions, and judgments if not created by logic. In this essay I will discuss the importance of reason and other ways of knowing in different areas of knowledge. On the one hand, reason is a reliable way of knowing because I think it allows us to clearly state or explain what is happening around us. us while emotion can block our vision of perception of things or people. In fact, through emotions reason can become clouded, such as that a victim of sexual abuse needs to identify her perpetrator; she might get any information that might lead her to give a particular/desired answer, rather than a necessarily accurate answer. However, if the woman is not particularly misled by questions that could alter her memory or make her emotionally overwhelmed by the horrible memories of what happened, then her logic comes into play by giving clear and concise answers. Perhaps, this will prevent the court from sending the wrong defendant to prison. Also, by referring to a real life situation about how reason is a reliable way of knowing, I could connect this with mathematics and how our deductive logic helps us in this area of ​​knowledge. knowledge. For example, if we take into consideration the mathematical system of Euclidean geometry; this states that "The angle of a straight line is 180 degrees". So the premises could be: if we have a straight line C and another straight line D that passes through C such as to form two angles x and y. Let's say the angle x is equal to 39º. What would be the magnitude of the angle y? Based on the information we have and the rule, we can deduce that the angle will be: 180º - 39º = 141ºOn the other hand reason is not a reliable way to know because I think it can lead to very weak inferences. This could relate to analogical reasoning/argumentation and how this, most of the time, prevents us from seeing beyond surfaces. Let's say a person doesn't like shrimp; so the same person will think that they won't like oysters either as they are both crustaceans. Furthermore, associating with a real life situation I want to report the philosopher Thomas Reid's argument from 1785 in favor of the existence of life on other planets. There may be a natural science connection here as Reid noted many similarities between Earth and the other planets in our solar system. He stated that all orbits are illuminated by the sun, many have moons, and they all rotate around an axis. Therefore, he concludes, "it is not unreasonable to think that those planets could, like our earth, be home to various orders of living creatures." In most cases this type of reasoning can be the most convenient form of justification for a hypothesis. Also, regarding the statement “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing” I think this might be true. For example, based on natural science we can consider the Northern Lights or Northern Lights. This phenomenon occurs when charged particles in the magnetosphere collide with atoms in Earth's upper atmosphere and absorb extra energy that is expressed as light. As the sun causes hydrogen and helium to fuse, protons and electrons are launched into space. We can therefore deduce that we should first experience an ongoing event and then we can.