1. Dylan Djani
Theory of Knowledge
Prescribed Essay
All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. On what grounds and to what extent
would you agree with this assertion?
Based on observations and personal opinion, I would agree with the assertion that all
knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism to the fullest extent because a claim to
knowledge does not guarantee knowledge, and in order to be able to obtain coherent knowledge
of everything, one has to consider all aspects of everything, which is only able to be done by
being open to logical reasoning. However, being fully open towards rational criticism does not
mean that one must continuously change and adapt his claim of knowledge to match the rational
criticism, but rather be open to the criticism in case the reasoning does have an effect on the
claim of knowledge. For more concrete areas of knowledge, namely mathematics and the natural
sciences, being fully open to rational criticism has proven successful in multiple instances in the
past. In other areas of knowledge, such as religion and ethics, rational criticism is important in
that the reasoning allows humans to analyze situations logically and to assess and evaluate
knowledge claims within their areas of knowledge. Although, with less concrete areas of
knowledge, other ways of knowing, namely language, perception, and emotion, definitely have
their place during the evaluation of claims of knowledge. Basically, in order to evaluate a
knowledge claim, one must be open to reason and rational criticism, as reason is an important
way of knowing that can further one’s knowledge; however, this is not because reason is a better
way of knowing than the rest, but rather because reason is a better way of knowing for specific

2. areas of knowledge and is an important way to gather knowledge, as are the other ways of
knowing.
Areas of knowledge such as mathematics and natural sciences are at one extreme and are
very concrete with knowledge claims, which make rational criticism extremely viable when
these areas of knowledge are in question. Since the nature of knowledge claims from such areas
of knowledge are concrete and clear, such as the axioms of Euclidean and Riemannian geometry,
ways of knowing such as emotion will not further one’s knowledge about the topic area.
Language and perception are important as well for explaining and understanding knowledge
claims from these areas of knowledge; however, reason is the only way of knowing that
appropriately validates these knowledge claims. Going further with the Euclidean and
Riemannian geometry, language and perception are clearly required in order to understand how
the axioms in each type of geometry relate to each other to create a consistent geometric system.
However, reason is the way of knowing that one uses to evaluate each geometric system for
consistency and ensure there are no contradictions within the axioms. Emotion has no role in
such concrete claims of knowledge because it cannot be used to determine whether or not
mathematical and scientific knowledge claims make sense and are coherent with the current
body of mathematic and scientific knowledge. Riemannian geometry grew out of rational
criticism of Euclidean geometry because Riemann was curious as to whether or not changing
Euclid’s axioms could result in another geometric system, and Riemannian geometry was the
result. Riemannian geometry works when considering a sphere, such as the Earth’s surface, and
is actually a better description of reality than Euclidean geometry, which shows the benefits of
rational criticism.

3. Human sciences, such as psychology and economics, should also be open to rational
criticism for similar reasons as mathematics and natural sciences should. Human sciences are in
between concrete areas of knowledge and another extreme and are by nature more subjective
than mathematics and natural sciences because humans tend to act in a random manner, as
opposed to in a clear-cut, ordered format. Although natural sciences and human sciences both
have common problems that must be avoided, such as experimenter and observer bias, human
sciences have a higher chance of not overcoming the problems because humans are involved in
the experiments, as opposed to solely being experimenters. In natural sciences, this is not the
case, and problems such as the Hawthorne effect, where the subjects of an experiment
temporarily change their behavior due to the fact that the experimenter is watching them. Due to
the higher chance of subjectivity of human sciences, claims of knowledge from human sciences
should be even more open to rational criticism than those from mathematics and natural sciences
in order to ensure that the knowledge claims are in fact correct and appropriate. For example, if
a study is done on high school students to determine whether or not music helps the students
learn, the students might act different just because they are aware that they are participating in an
experiment, whereas a study of how quickly birds breed in different lightings would not need to
deal with such random variables. The principle of using rational criticism is the same for human
sciences as for mathematics and natural sciences, but the extent to which the principle is
necessary is greater for human sciences due to the greater chance of subjectivity for such areas of
knowledge.
At the other extreme of areas of knowledge lay those such as ethics and religion.
Knowledge claims from these areas of knowledge are usually subject to severe rational criticism,
at the complaint of the one who is claiming the knowledge. These areas of knowledge are

4. extremely subjective when compared to the rest because nobody can say for sure what the
absolute truth is regarding ethics or religion. Even though such areas of knowledge are
extremely subjective, they should also be open to rational criticism. Regarding ethics there are
multiple accepted models, each with certain flaws, just as there are multiple religions throughout
the world. Similar to all of the other areas of knowledge, rational criticism is useful for
determining whether or not a claim of knowledge from the extremely subjective areas of
knowledge has any actual value or meaning. For example, if a teenager from Australia comes up
with a new religion that involves worshipping crystals because he claims to have been contacted
by a god, reason tells us that the claim has no value and is meaningless. However, unlike the
other areas of knowledge, namely the ones outside of the “extremely subjective” category, these
areas of knowledge require other ways of knowing to a far greater extent than the rest. Emotion
as a way of knowing is, for example, integral to anybody to believes in and practices a certain
religion. Emotion is also important when considering the various models for ethics: although
each model of ethics might make sense rationally, some might emotionally feel wrong, which
shows the need of emotion in such subjective areas of knowledge. Extremely subjective areas of
knowledge should be open to rational criticism, as all areas of knowledge, but depend on other
ways of knowing more so than the less subjective areas of knowing.
All areas of knowledge should be open to rational criticism, but should not change to fix
the criticized problems. Areas of knowledge can be subdivided into groups based on their
subjectivity in order to analyze the dependency on other ways of knowing besides reason: the
less subjective areas of knowledge, such as mathematics and natural sciences, do not depend on
emotion as much as the extremely subjective areas of knowledge, such as ethics and religion. In
between these two groups lie areas of knowledge such as human sciences, which are more

5. subjective than natural sciences and mathematics, but not nearly as subjective as ethics or
religion. As the areas of knowledge become more subjective, the necessity for other ways of
knowing increase; however, claims of knowledge from each area of knowledge should still be
open to rational criticism. By listening to rational criticism, the chances of a bad occurrence are
zero, but the chances of a good occurrence exist, such as with Euclidean versus Riemannian
geometry. Due to this, every area of knowledge should be open towards rational criticism.

6. subjective than natural sciences and mathematics, but not nearly as subjective as ethics or
religion. As the areas of knowledge become more subjective, the necessity for other ways of
knowing increase; however, claims of knowledge from each area of knowledge should still be
open to rational criticism. By listening to rational criticism, the chances of a bad occurrence are
zero, but the chances of a good occurrence exist, such as with Euclidean versus Riemannian
geometry. Due to this, every area of knowledge should be open towards rational criticism.