Whether an understanding claim should be open to rational criticism depends on the area of knowledge being considered. In regions of knowledge, such as natural sciences, if the say is not justified rationally then it can't be regarded as fact. Therefore these knowledge boasts should be open to rational criticism. In the areas of knowledge such as appearance, a knowledge promise does not depend on reason or reasoning, so for this to be open to logical criticism may be unsuitable. In this article, I will explore the effect rational criticism has on regions of knowledge and see whether this should be the foundation for knowledge says to be accepted as truth.
Rational criticism takes on a huge role in the growth of scientific knowledge. It is because the scientific approach to accumulating knowledge is by creating a theory for which to utilize reason and induction cannot disprove. However if it's disproved by logical criticism or experimental data then the theory must be adapted or declined. Therefore, any knowledge says should not contradict any established facts. An example of this would be Democritus who was simply one of the first ever to propose the theory of the indivisible atom1 using rational ideas. However at that time, this statement didn't have any observational implications and so cannot be proved using empirical research. His theory that the atom is indivisible should be open to logical criticism if it's to be utilized to explain rational events on the globe. However due to improvements in technology, empirical information found by Rutherford in 1911 exhibited that the atom was manufactured from protons, neutrons and electrons2. Therefore to confirm the validity of scientific knowledge boasts, the say itself must make it through logical criticism and fit the empirical evidence. However, most of the time, scientific knowledge claims rely on assumptions and so the validity of Rutherford's case depends on assumptions that his method and equipment were reliable. So for technological knowledge claims to be accepted as real truth not only must they most probably for rational criticism but any research or justification should be valid.
Rational criticism depends on just how of knowing of reason to produce a point of conflict with an understanding claim. However if the knowledge claim does not concern reason then rationally criticising it would not be ideal. This is the case in looks in which a knowledge claim depends on emotion rather than reason to demonstrate it. For instance, the claim that Leonardo Da Vinci is a much better musician than Damien Hirst is difficult to show using logical criticism. Obviously if the criteria for being better were the number of pieces of art they produced or the amount of skill required to produce the works of art then one may be able to come to a bottom line concerning which artist is better using rational criticism. However, if the criteria to be better was which set of art impacts the audience higher, often reason is not contained in the decision and sentiment is used to judge which set of skill creates a bigger mental effect on the audience. To reach a conclusion, facts can be collected in the form of a survey but because this is this unreliable and invalid method, someone cannot disprove this knowledge claim at a later date using logical criticism as it is unreasonable for it to be open to logical criticism. Cosmetic knowledge promises therefore rely more on feelings than on reason therefore it does not need rational criticism for it to be rationally justified. So, as the evidence for scientific knowledge promises must be proved valid we must determine if the feelings used to justify the aesthetic knowledge case are valid.
Moreover, appearance and science are different according to that they progress. Whereas knowledge uses past data, present ideas and reason to demonstrate and improve clinical claims, aesthetics make use of emotions never to improve art work but to evoke different thoughts in the audience. Therefore, if one assumes that the price of a bit of art is immediately proportional, to how "good" it is (i. e. the amount of satisfaction received from it), this would mean, Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa should evoke more satisfaction than Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God". However, in my own opinion I realize that Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God" is more aesthetically pleasing than a uninteresting and tacky painting and so I will claim that it is best. However, the lack of justification and reasoning would mean my summary is irrational but it can't be proven incorrect. In this way, aesthetic knowledge statements can be irrational but true as it is inappropriate to use logical criticism.
Contrastingly, in regards to to technological knowledge claims, the contrary may be true. Knowledge statements in the area of knowledge of knowledge rely almost completely on reason and rationality. Therefore it is possible for an understanding promise to be logical yet untrue. For instance, J. J. Thomson in 1987 rationally demonstrated at that time that the atom contains electrons suspended in a soup of positive demand3. Actually, the idea was so logical that up and until 1910 scholar studying chemistry would learn the "plum pudding model" as truth. So even although claim was logical yet wrong resulting in the theory that in order for scientific promises to be accepted as truth rational criticism is necessary as without it incorrect ideas would be accepted as reality. Additionally, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity has yet to be disproved after decades of logical criticism which has concluded his conclusions as scientific truth. However, the recent anomaly experienced by two German physicists claim that Einstein and his many enthusiasts might not be correct in the end in an test in which a particle exceeded the rate of light4. This test was dismissed as its results were against Einstein's theory of relativity and don't fit the existing data. Obviously even if I were to be logical I would say that it is merely one with the empirical data from the German scientists as the paradigm change that Einstein is may be wrong is improbable and irrational as he has not ever been proven wrong. This highlights another problem with individual reason which will look to satisfy preconceived ideas by manipulating evidence therefore is not completely objective. Scientific knowledge prides itself for being accurate due to not relying on subjective data but this example shows how humans can be vunerable to subjective ideas and therefore may distort medical claims of truth. Therefore, for any scientific knowledge lay claim to be accepted as fact the evidence or justification given must not be erroneous or subjective.
In conclusion, technology as an area of knowledge is heavily reliant on rational criticism as approach to improving your body of knowledge as well as confirming it therefore should be open to logical criticism even if the data is known as factual. Moreover, any justification or research used to enforce an understanding case should be free from mistakes and subjective methods The region of aesthetics is somewhat different as most knowledge claims in this field are made emotionally in the lack of reason which rules out logical criticism as a way of reaching the advancement than it because in looks, unlike science, the aim is never to improve knowledge but to rejoice and appreciate imagination. However, the use of reason and rational criticism where it can be applied in looks should be inspired to achieve a proper justified final result even if the validity of the case does not rely upon reason.