With the invention of the internet but more specifically Google search engine, it can be argued that we hold more knowledge than any other generation for we have the answers to all of our questions just a few clicks away. However as we have now all the answers our brain craves we lack the mental process to figure out the answer and the curiosity to wonder if the answers we receive are even accurate .Our curiosity and impatience to feed it has killed our brain’s function to think thoroughly and analyze in order to find the answers our mind is hungry for. Which raises the question, should all knowledge claims be open to rational criticisms? This is not a question that I can pop into the magics of a search engine, this question requires the brain to work for itself and create its own stance on the question. Despite the fact that in these modern times technologies are advanced and the scientific discoveries have been remarkable in the last century
I do not believe that everything should be logically justified and to support my stance I will be applying the science in dopamine and the scientific method and miracles. Love. Lust. Adultery. Attention. These abstract concepts are result of the hormone molecule dopamine. Is this true? Is love dopamine? One of the first things we learn in science is the scientific method in which one constructs a hypothesis, and then conducts an experiment, analyze data and finally the conclusion. In the conclusion, hypotheses are only accepted and rejected they are not proved right or wrong. Therefore all the data about dopamine is not proven, it is accepted as of right now with the limited data that has been researched about it. Because of this we cannot prove all knowledge claims can be criticized rationally. Scientist utilizes inductive

reasoning when forming hypotheses and theories and use deductive reasoning when applying them to specific situations. Inductive reasoning is going from general examples to specific, deductive reasoning is the process of reason that goes from specific to general. For example a hypothesis made with inductive reasoning would be ‘Every time I eat lasagna before a game I score four goals, therefore when people eat lasagna before games the lasagna makes them score four goals.’ An example of a deductive reasoning being used to apply in a specific situation is for example ‘Studies show that all people who smoke on a regular basis get cancer, everyone who gets cancer dies ,therefore everyone who smokes dies.’ To avoid falling into the reductionist fallacy which is ‘...just because A is composed of B it follows that A is nothing but B’ I must specify that I understand that love is more than dopamine. Love is unconditional, deep, forgiving, loyal, and respectful. Love is physical and emotional. When I was twelve years old my mom and her two sisters were hosting a Halloween to celebrate my mom’s thirtieth birthday. Long story short, my mom fell off of the roof in the presence of all my family trying to decorate a tree. Everyone was in shock for about two minutes
.We could not take her to a hospital because my dad was the only person with a car but the car was getting washed. We could not even contact an ambulance because my grandma had not paid her phone bill. I quickly stared to imagine what my life would be like without a mom as she layed in the cement floor with everyone rushing around her. Suddenly my aunt who rarely visits from San Francisco showed up in her new car and my mom was hurried to the hospital. My mom to this day does not remember that incident and my aunt showing up in her new car is considered a miracle in my family. Nobody knew my aunt was going to show up and she claims that she just

wanted to visit as a surprise to my mom on her birthday . There is no way to explain miracles rationally without using any type of totipotent god into the conversation, as someone who does not believe in an