Does the Theory of Knowledge need to be reasonable?

The natural science impacted the way I understand myself since I am a pretty rational person I like factual information and set guidelines that get me places. I agree that technology is not replacing out thinking and curiosity for the world rather it aids our thinking about the phenomenon's that we observe all the time. Personal knowlage is the knowlage that we retain and we are able to explain etc… technology has and for the greatest time helped to visually generate a visual representation of nature of illnesses. In a much more humane way with an MRI for example, doctors can see nerves and potential fractures in them like never before and make knowlage and assumptions about the biology of the human body to have more knowlage avalible to make more informed diagnosis. As a rational person impacts the way I understand myself and my interactions with the rest of the natural world. Physics knowlage is known to be the more applicable to this. The mechanics of the world and new

When playing the game ‘mastermind’ in class I can make some connections when scaling the ideas up to the scale of magnitude that covers the whole entire world. The first aspect to talk about is about the idea of if the leader was nature the players in the game won’t they be essentially anything with a soul, it's not so much watching scientists struggle to make sense of observations but more so to create the observations for people to see. And the code created by nature that is the observation it dictates, it waits then on people to discover that sight, its nothing really to figure out but it is something we can eventually observe by chance or just pure luck. The role of the hypothesis is to formulate an accurate thought when we think we are accustomed to the if… then… because… the format of a question, where based on the past, the next move is... because of the feedback from ‘the world’. Then it becomes a trial and error play until the desired outcome is eventually achie

NASA is preparing to send a manned mission to Mars , over the 6-month journey to the red planet NASA intends to put the crew of 5 people into a deep hibernation sleep for 180 days out of the 6months of travel. Although this will encounter several ethical limitations concerning essentially taking away 5months of someone’s life, while in transit to another planet. Initial proposals presented the idea of sending manned missions to Mars with the intention of remaining there for the rest of their lives. In that instance, the people have already chosen to give up their lives for exploration. Then talking 5 months to waste doesn’t look so bad and then, until the astronauts decide not to work anymore and at that point, they certainly do become a waste of life potential.   This scheme while highly debatable will be pursued by scientists. They should because as humans we have a need to satisfy curiosity and for us to gather new information about the universe we live in. while peopl

Dilemma: You work in an office space where you have been in the same role for the past 6 years, you realized you can get the boss fired and take his place, your pay would skyrocket but at the same time, you would not be able to maintain standards and the company will fail. You would get the biggest compensation of $500, 000 but everyone else in the company would have to walk away empty-handed and jobless. What would you do? Devine Command Theory: this is a concept where you do what would be wanted by a supreme power that is tied to religion, faith, and beliefs. We understand that in this case, the company would be out of business, but that company may be forcing people into acts they do not believe in and that we can consider that there is the reason for the current boss to be thrown out. Unilateralism: the idea that wants the greatest amount of good for the most amount of people. Obviously, if you do become the boss and everyone loses their jobs does not sound lik

When filling out the morality play questionnaire I took an initial rule, that I would not involve myself in situations I don’t need to be in. I would generally help where I could but, I would not deviate “out of my way” to help someone who I don’t know. The parts I found particularly difficult was where it is suggesting wasting one life to save several others, my proposition Is that I do not give any bias to anyone. I am not going to be the one to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. In that situation, I often diverted to leaving things the way they are and not interfering at all. I found the situation where I am helping someone I know as in a close friend or relative to be easy to answer always with a definitive YES. I see it has to do with love for that person, unconditionally I would want to do everything in my power completely un-dependent on other opinions. Form this exercise I learned that ethical decisions don’t have a right or wrong, they are often never reall

In what ways does this engage with Reason and emotion as ways of knowing? The reason as a way of knowing engages with the reader when the text often includes elements of context throughout the text. The idea is so that the constant use of factual historical evidence “same language that concerned the school system in 1984” appeals to our logic that the text is credible and knowledgeable in the subject matter. As seen tied in with the United States history “we could illustrate in the history of the U.S. censorship with countless other books” Therefore, our reason leads us to believe that the article is true. Emotion is directly engaged with the reader when the text uses harsh terminology like “yanked from an eighth-grade reading list”. This appeals to emotions as the idea of provoking someone as young as an eighth-grader something as innocent as a book creates an immediate scenic of prejudice against the school district for doing such.  What knowledge claims seem to be