Andy Nguyen Period 6 TOK

Christopher Hitchens, prominent author, speaker, and anti-theist, once said That which
can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. He was very vocal about
his anti-theism, and the statement makes sense coming from him; it could be almost be construed
as a direct attack on religion.
Perhaps in context that actually was Hitchens intention. But the statement is so much
more than that, whether Hitchens intended it or notI can go so far to say that it sounds like an
empiricist creed, a succinct phrase that embodies what being an empiricist means at its core. And
of course, a statement that is undoubtedly empiricist in nature is bound to raise knowledge issues
and conflicts that are rationalist in natureand that is how we will begin.
The two philosophical schools of rationalism and empiricism are two starkly different
ways of approaching the same single issue; both attempt to answer the question, what is the
foundation of knowledge? To the empiricists, all knowledge comes from evidence and nothing
can be known prior to being shown evidence. A rationalist, however, would say that all
knowledge is built on reasoning and logic; innate logic we all have, and that if we were smart
enough, we would be able to reason out everything without aids such as scientific
experimentation. An empiricist would draw on the example of our antiquated knowledge of a
geocentric universe. A rationalist would counter that those who actually attempted to apply
reason to the question through observation of the stars and planets figured out the truth, using
their innate reason and knowledge. An empiricist would say that the positions of celestial bodies
was just evidence that we did not see. A rationalist would say evidence is nothing without the
reason needed to interpret itand so the argument goes on.
The problem with empiricism is that not all the knowledge we have is obviously empirical (such
as mathematics, or ethics), and attempting to prove that they are requires extremely non-obvious
leaps of logicnot to mention that our senses can be deceived. The problem with rationalism is
that it is hard for some to accept that certain truths are self-evident or that we have innate
knowledge, and that in practice reason alone cannot make the discoveries that the scientific
method can. However, I think that taking that step of beliefthat some truths are self-evident
is justified if only because it simplifies the whole debate immensely, because it allows both
schools of logic to coexist (though I also do personally believe that we hold innate, self-evident
knowledge.)
an example, I draw upon mathematics. Today, few people question negative or
imaginary numbers, but each time one was introduced into the number system, there was much
skepticism and backlash until it was found that such numbers allowed for a comprehensive and
elegant simplification of mathematical techniques and indeed more situations in which those
techniques could be applied. Therefore the philosophical difficulties raised by them were
cheerfully ignored and regarded as a waste of time by mathematiciansthe system obviously
worked, after all. In a similar vein I believe some truths can indeed be self-evident, sort of in the
spirit of Occams Razor; therefore in our acquisition of knowledge, I argue that both rationalism
and empiricism are represented, with empiricism predominating over rationalism if rationalism
happens to be inadequate, and vice versathat is to say, some areas of knowing depend more on
one or the other.
So though I do disagree with the statement, I can only say I disagree with it only in
certain areas of knowing, because in some areas of knowing empiricism is decidedly more
important than rationalism is. Certainly, however, it does not apply in all cases, and
counterexamples abound across different ways of knowing in all sorts of areas of knowing, such
as those of mathematics and ethics. That said, this statement finds better footing in more
empirical areas of knowing, such as the experimental sciences, which I will discuss towards the
end of this essay.
The best place to begin is mathematics, because it is mathematics that will serve best to
illustrate how the empiricism embodied by the statement may not work in some casesit is the
clearest counterexample out of all of them. It attains this distinction by virtue of being a field
built solely on reason and rigorous deductive reasoning, since every fact, theorem, and concept is
derived from an earlier fact, theorem, or concept, which were themselves derived, back and back
and back. There is no testing and no solid evidence for the veracity of these concepts, just a
series of logical steps that were taken to arrive at them. Assuming that evidence in the original
statement means hard, real-world evidence, then the concepts of mathematics are indeed being
asserted without evidence. Of course, one could consider these logical steps evidence in and
of themselves, but in so doing they would extend their meaning of evidence to include
assumptions arrived at by reason, which is incompatible with an solely empirical outlook on
knowledge.
Such a modification would indeed make the statement much more flexible for cases like
that of mathematics and therefore allow for the aforementioned coexistence of empiricism and
rationalism. This second, less strict interpretation of the statement is obviously easier to swallow
(after all no one outright dismissed Einsteins theory of relativity, built on mathematics and
existing physical principlesrather, they tested it) but even a modified definition has problems
for those areas where logic breaks down slightly, such as ethics.
Yes, there have been ethical theories, such as the self-interest theory, or the universal law
theory (the golden rule), or even utilitarianism. These theories unite centuries of thinking on
ethics in different cultures at different times, explaining in their own ways what these cultures
have in commonand the theories say that ethical decisions follow the guidelines of acting in
your own self interest, doing as you would be done by, or acting with an aim to maximize
happiness for the most people, respectively. They are like models for ethical behavior that has
gone before and therefore models for ethical behavior to comebut none of these three theories
explain why these standards are considered ethical. The closest that comes to answering why is
the self-interest theory, which explains that we act ethically because ethical actions (including
concern for others) promote our own welfare. But I see a flaw in thisthe theory will allow
stealing when there is no risk of exposure, because there are no drawbacks to our self-interest;
likewise with cheating on a test, or taking a bribe, as long as you are reasonably sure you will not
be caught.
Essentially most of these ethical concerns are being asserted without evidence, but I
would love to see somebody dismiss them in company while keeping a high moral reputation.
The statement fails to work here, and I believe innate truths about ethics are involved. It is in the
experimental sciences where this statement finds the most ground. Flawless reason will still fail
if premises are false and incomplete, and there are too many things unknown in science to be
able to deduce the rest of it. Empiricism is therefore important; it is an important step for a newly
written scientific theory to be vindicated by testing, and though a theory can never be proved,
successive vindications will surely strengthen it. Without empirical testing, asserted without
evidence, a theory is just something for people to be skeptical aboutmaybe not outright
dismiss it, since the theory has a logical basis, but an untested theory means that one cannot say
that they are sure, or even reasonably sure, about it as a good explanation of phenomena.
Whatever sound logic the theory is based on, science is full of uncertainty, and I imagine that the
writer of that theory, whoever they were, could not do anything but cross their fingers and hope.
Discussion of the statement would not be complete without involving religion. Indeed the
existence of gods, the miracles of Jesus, the possibility of Nirvanathere is no empirical
evidence for any of it. Faith in religion is a special kind of knowledge that defies empiricism, for
the objects of religion e.g. gods are neither observable nor testable. I think here Hitchens
statement is correct without modification, that you can certainly dismiss faith as a reasoned
argument, because faith is, after all, irrational. Dismissing without evidence their religious
assertions does not, however, mean that they are untruereligion by nature cannot be proven
untrueit simply means that it is not worth reasoned debate.
So in conclusion, I believe that Hitchens statement only really works with religion,
because religion is unique among ways of knowing for requiring neither rationalism nor
empiricism, simply faith. However, I argue that for other areas of knowing both must coexist,
and Hitchens statement cannot be fully true.

Word Count 1486