# data[].attributes.headline
What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring that all knowledge is verified by a group? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring that all knowledge is verified by a group? 

# data[].attributes.body
Aaryan

Certain advantages of all knowledge being verified by a group include- quicker problem solving, allowing for expert opinion to be considered, more transparency in the knowledge verification process and better understanding of knowledge by a large group of people, it also means better deliberation over certain topics which helps in refining the Knowledge.

Certain disadvantages include- this process is more time consuming and hinders productivity and the acquisition of knowledge, valid opinions sometimes get ignored and herd mentality can take place leading to incorrect verification.

IUPAC stands for the "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry" and deals with establishing nomenclature for chemical compounds and approving new discoveries in the field of Chemistry. It consists of several distinguished chemists who deliberate over all the advancements in chemistry and pass their judgement. They also verify various rules for naming compound so that a uniform nomenclature is followed around the world. Thus IUPAC represents the advantage of having knowledge being verified by a group. (https://iupac.org/100/stories/a-common-language-for-scientists/)

The jury system is an example of a situation where knowledge verified by a group is actually disadvantageous. Some of the disadvantages include- jury tampering, radical views/bias by a majority of the members, secrecy of juror room means that there is no way of knowing how they arrived at the decision, lack of understanding can lead to disagreements and it is more time consuming, even more media exposure can influence their decisions. This is why in India juries were abolished and a single judge is preferred over juries. This was a direct outcome of the KM Nanavati vs The State of Maharashtra case, in which the jurors were influenced by media coverage.

(https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Case-Analysis-K.M-Nanavati-v.-State-of-Maharashtra-By-Tanya-Tikiya.pdf)

# data[].attributes.headline
What constitutes a “good reason” for us to accept a claim? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What constitutes a “good reason” for us to accept a claim? 

# data[].attributes.body
Aaryan

For a reason to be considered "good" enough to accept a claim it must answer any hypothetical challenge posed against the claim, which is possible by providing evidence. These hypothetical challenges can be questions such as "why do you say that." Convincing and measured responses with ample evidence to this question constitutes a good reason and is enough to make us accept a claim.

For example if a claim is made that "med school is a good institution for aspiring doctors" and the question "why do you say that" is asked then the claim should be able to justify the hypothetical argument it has proposed. Which in this case is that, med school teaches students the fundamentals of anatomy and prepares them to become future doctors.
(https://www.comm.pitt.edu/argument-claims-reasons-evidence)

In some cases our personal beliefs and sentiments also forms a "good reason" to accept certain claims even if they are not true. (https://youtu.be/SiRuhg7x1zA)

# data[].attributes.headline
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis? - Rajveer 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis? - Rajveer 

# data[].attributes.body
A rational basis is “a way of knowing in which one compiles historical information about similar situations in the past, and extrapolates to find certainty,”

Yes, knowledge requires a rational basis is because there are a lot of things that might seem common but strangely go against what we learn and are very mysterious. The bermuda triangle is an example of this. The Bermuda Triangle, section of the North Atlantic Ocean off North America in which more than 50 ships and 20 airplanes are said to have mysteriously disappeared. The area, whose boundaries are not universally agreed upon, has a vaguely triangular shape marked by the Atlantic coast of the Florida panhandle (in the United States), Bermuda, and the Greater Antilles. We don't know why this happens but we know it only after multiple events that took place. Even though we know this happens to ships and planes disappear in this region we still don't know why. But from the past experiences we formulate a rational basis and we put it together and gain the knowledge that it is unsafe for the vessels to enter that area.

No because for knowledge, sometimes we don't require a rational  basis because we don't need to rely on our past experiences for this we can experience it first hand since it might be very common. In the case of Nature Sciences, somethings that are very common does not require a rational basis because things like gravity are very common and we all know about it and we don't need to rely on past experiences to know that when we throw something up it will come down, we can experience it first hand. Which is why in this case a rational basis will not be required because we can witness the laws of gravity first hand.

# data[].attributes.body
Methods and tools through which we acquire knowledge are :
1) Internet
2) Parents
3) Education
4) Books that we read
5)  Personal Experiences
6) Experiments

# data[].attributes.headline
• How do our expectations and assumptions have an impact on how we perceive things? - Ritisha 

# data[].attributes.subject
• How do our expectations and assumptions have an impact on how we perceive things? - Ritisha 

# data[].attributes.body
Sources - Videos/ Films
Object - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeTT31jXP8o)
Our expectations and assumptions set a general basis for our knowledge. Our expectations come from knowledge precursors that we then apply to other things we witness. When those things comply with our expectations  and assumptions they seem normal and valid. However when they dont, the instances seem surreal and outer worldly - simply because they are beyond what we expect it to be. This is evident in the Natural Sciences when the property of gravity is applied to all things on earth. Gravity suggests that things will fall to the ground and roll down hills, thus when it doesn't happen in places like the Mystery Spot in California, our sense perceptions picks up on this anomaly and deems it  unusual and mystical. Our expectations have the ability to differentiate between the ordinary and the extra-ordinary.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Are intuition, evidence, reasoning, consensus and authority all equally convincing methods of justification? -  Ritisha 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Are intuition, evidence, reasoning, consensus and authority all equally convincing methods of justification? -  Ritisha 

# data[].attributes.body
Method - articles, anecdotal reflection.
No, they are not equally convincing. The differences are detailed below.
Intuition is largely dependent on a feeling that comes from within. It is more inclusive of the "6th sense" we are said to have. This feeling will be different from person to person based on identity, culture, context of rising, education, etc. therefore although intuition acts as a good method of justification for self proclamation, it might be harder to convince others of this feeling, thus it could also be equally ineffective.
Evidence and Reasoning go hand in hand. Evidence is often the first step to reasoning as the inital analysis of deductive reasoning. Reasoning is basically using logical assumptions to formulate a justification for an occurance. Thus if the evidence is pure sense perception without emotional influence, eradicating bias, this is a very strong method of justification. A good example or evidence and reasoning coming together to justify concepts is in NS where plants growing without food proves existence of photosynthesis.
Consensus is a common agreement reached within a group of people, that is difficult to come by when in diverse settings, such as in History where the Civil War was triggered from a lack of consensus on whether race laws should exist or not. However in common fields with like minded individuals, that is easier to attain, such as the creation of Radium in 1898 where it was discovered by scientists and officially labeled by a Council of Scientists. If concensus is being reached on the basis of majority, it isn't an effective method of justification because the minority's point of view is completely disregarded although it could be of value. Concensus is only a viable method of justification when it is reached through unanimity.
Authority is the most unreliable method of justification simply because there is no telling of its signficance. Authority can and often will suggest viable methods of justification, like Churchill during WW2, but they can also suggest incorrect ones, such as the facist regime implemented by Hitler. Authority's complexity lies in its inability to form own judgements. Whatever the authority suggest, the subordinates must follow. Thus the procession of the group is completely dependent on the individual, making it an ineffective method of reasoning.