Concepts and Conclusions

Name
Professor’s name
Course number
Date
To what extent do concepts shape conclusions?
The primary difficulty encountered during the examining of the theory of knowledge is in the definition of knowledge. However, the most frequently used designation is the one that discusses knowledge as true belief that is justified and as a working model. Accordingly, if a statement is factual, or rather if it is alleged to be correct, and we are also vindicated in considering that it is right, and then we discern it. However, some philosophers still do not agree with this definition of knowledge, and as earlier mentioned, the definition of knowledge among different theorists is different, and that has become somehow problematic. To what extent do the concepts that we use shape the conclusions that we reach? Some philosophers even hold to the fact that this is because of the different kinds of knowledge that we possess.
Concepts can shape outcomes. The conclusion is aligned with the concepts received. Where do we get concepts from? Everything that we experience gives us some concepts in life. Experience is the most crucial thing that gives us knowledge of the world. According to empiricists, whatever we learn is as a result of perception and conception. They say that it is impossible to have knowledge devoid of know-how with the possible exclusion of minor semantic and objective facts. Therefore, according to this norm, it is likely to examine empirically a prerogative that and perceive that the application contains meaning.

In Economics, the concept of usefulness can lead us to a normative comprehension of what satisfaction is. When we get that concept we can analyze it, reason, make a judgment, draw a hypothesis and reach an inevitable conclusion.
When Dr. Alexander Flemings discovered penicillin, his concepts started with contamination in the colonies of Staphylococcus aureus. The disease was caused by a mold known as penicillium notatum. It was just as he was putting his plates in the washing up so that they could get cleaned that he noticed something unusual. He already had concepts knowledge and experience with molds for he had lots of them growing on his plates. This plate was different for there was a bright ring in the jelly. Since no bacteria seemed to grow on the plate, he conceptualized that something was killing them. Immediately, he saw how that could be significant such that he labeled and saved that plate for study. Fleming later confirmed what he had found out since his conclusion had turned out to be remarkable. His conclusion was that there were some factors in that penicilium mold were inhibiting bacterial growth. More to that, he saw how it could be harnessed to fight some infectious diseases. To strengthen and heighten his discovery and conclusion, he looked for resources and assistance such as Dr. Howard Florey to further it. After running all the necessary trials, tests and experiments, the first antibiotic in the world were discovered.
Another significant example is Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. Copernicus’s interesting concept of a heliocentric solar system in the 16th century explained why and how planets revolve around the sun. However, Johannes Kepler had to build on that work, accomplished by Tyco Brahe and others, to create a clear scientific basis on how the planets move. His three laws of planetary gesticulation were formed in the early 17th century and designated how planets orbit the sun. These laws are still used, and they are orbits law, areas law and period’s law. The proofs presented in this case were founded on data collected from observations. Note that they have remained mathematically laborious, and they familiarize a person with the fatefully dominant concept of observational fault. Since then, astrophysicists have learned to question whether it fitted the observations in the known verge of error but not whether a concept was right or wrong. For that reason, his contentious concept is associated with all the three laws of earthly gesticulation.
However, some philosophers counter the claim by saying that it is reasoning and not concepts that shape conclusion. In every research project, the conclusion is always made after reasoning. Despite the reasoning processes or the research method used, the conclusion is the one that determines success or failure. Note that if a particular experiment is summarized by a weak conclusion, the results cannot be taken with the same seriousness as a firmly concluded experiment. It only takes a research with robust and well-designed research process, with sound finding to draw the right conclusions. In fact, they define the psychology of reasoning as the study of the way people reason with a broader definition as the process of drawing the conclusion that help people solve problems and make sound decisions and judgment. There has been extensive research on how people reason. This has raised many questions about rationality, experience, knowledge and intelligence. Making conclusion requires the right strategies so that one may get the right answer. It is for that reason that most errors in judgment affect reasoning.
Let say for example one wants to get to a particular place. It requires the person to have the real knowledge about the correct way to that location. The person reasoning is of just as much practical use as the knowledge he or she has. Consequently, knowing the way to the mentioned destination rather than merely having the genuine belief that an individual route is a correct way to go is imperative. In fact, one is less likely to be perturbed by the fact that the road, initially seemed to be going towards the right direction. At this point, the mere true belief may be lost because the traveler might lose the confidence that he/she is moving in the right direction. At that point, the individual ought to reason in the right way to consider the conclusion to make whether to continue of going back. In contrast, if the traveler is sure that this is the right way to go, then they will be more optimistic in the light of such development. For that reason, they will make the effort of pressing on regardless. That is how one’s confidence is rewarded by getting where they wanted to go. The implication here is as simple to comprehend as it is clear and precise. Knowledge instills reasoning that shapes the conclusion that one makes. Therefore, the fact that no apparent reason justifies it might create a problem.
There are those philosophers who do not agree that it is the reasoning alone that shape conclusion and connect motivation to conclusion. However, they have concentrated too much on refuting the fact that concept and reasoning shape conclusions that are drawn. When a hypothesis is reasoned but not accepted, it does not lead to the same conclusion. According their view, the human reasoning process is intrinsically flawed but more often than not, it is more important than conception. For example, if I trail a single way of reasoning, I will come to the conclusion that a ball is round. But if I reason differently, I’ll conclude that the ball’s roundness is as a result of my viewpoint. Maybe the ball is round but maybe it’s not. There is no difference in whatever the truth of the matter stands to be. This is because one can trust anything that is according to human reasoning. It is just the same thing as being given a mathematics test. There is no difference if one accidentally comes up with the right answer. Making a slight mistake in the calculation while solving the problem means that the solution, which is the conclusion, is wrong. There is therefore no partial credit for that. Similarly, human reasoning is faulty, and it’s immaterial whether it unintentionally leads us to certainty.  After revealing some illogicalities within the anthropological reasoning process, they make this miserable evaluation. Since all of our info is from our sanities, it is not practical for an individual to reason on something that they have not encountered.
Here is a biblical/ anatomic example to help understand this claim. Galileo defended The Copernican astronomical revolution by Galileo. It shows us that we do not live in a geocentric world. The Scriptural viewpoint is said to have come from a divine concentration, did not recognize this rudimentary fact. The reasoning used by scientists is that the earth revolves around the sun. They also reasoned and concluded that we are on a twisting arm in one galaxy of billions in the universe. The Catholic Church lost trustworthiness in the eyes of researchers and philosophers for taking a big hit on that conclusion. Thus, the Biblical viewpoint towards the geocentric universe is not aligned with the planetary motion proven later by scientists. This shows that the biblical conclusion is not based on reasoning but belief. Accordingly, if a person believes something that it is true and has justification, then he/she knows it; otherwise, they do not. The ability to believe is considered the first form of knowledge and that is what shapes biblical conclusion. It is claimed that unless human bestows their trusts on a particular thing, they cannot understand nor comprehend it. Even where something seems factual and accurate, individuals must have a binding motive to trusting that it is true and probably not fictions
While we are concluding, we need to take note that the theory of knowledge is a very broad topic. One must understand that the most regularly used definition makes it clear that knowledge is the true belief that is justified. The conclusion is shaped by both concept and reasoning, and the debate can be taken further than that. The two examples on how Dr. Alexander Flemings discovered penicillin and Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion are the best examples to explain how concepts used shape conclusions drawn. Most importantly, the reasoning procedures or the research method used to determine the conclusion for it is the one that determines success or failure. Making inference requires the right approaches so that one may get the right answer. It is for that reason that most errors in decision affect perception.