essay reading is the best source of knowledge

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

JRE Library

Books mentioned on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast

We may earn an affiliate commission if you make a purchase after clicking on links from our site. Learn more

Benefits of Reading: Why You Should Read More

A large percentage of the population is missing out on the significant benefits of reading. According to Statistic Brain , about a third of U.S. high school graduates will never read another book after graduating and 42 percent of college students will never read another book after obtaining their degree.

Reading can improve your life in several ways leading to better well-being and mental health, personal growth, and a boost in confidence. These benefits will carry over to your school work, career and social life.

If you haven’t read a book in years or think reading is for nerds, perhaps you should reconsider. The following are just a few of the benefits associated with reading and the reasons why you should read more.

Reading expands your vocabulary

The more you read, the more words you’ll be exposed to. Consistent exposure to new words, learning their meanings and seeing the context in which they’re used will increase your mental dictionary. You will have more words available to use and more ways to use them in conversation and in writing. This will improve your ability to communicate effectively, allowing you to better articulate your thoughts and more accurately express how you feel. Most writers would attest that reading makes them better at writing.

Reading stimulates your brain

Your brain needs to be kept active and engaged in order to stay healthy. Reading is great exercise for the mind. From a neurobiological standpoint, reading is more demanding on the brain than processing speech and images. Mental stimulation from reading will improve your memory and learning capacity, keep your mind sharp by slowing cognitive decline as you age, and strengthen your brain against disease like Alzheimer’s or dementia.

Reading improves your memory

Reading creates new memories. With each of these new memories, your brain forms new connections between neurons called synapses and strengthens existing ones. As you read you are memorizing and recalling words, ideas, names, relationships, and plots. You’re essentially training your brain to retain new information.

Reading makes you smarter

Reading makes you smarter, it’s that simple. In the paper What Reading Does for the Mind by Anne E. Cunningham and Keith E. Stanovich, reading was found to compensate for average cognitive ability by building vocabulary and expanding general knowledge. Development of intelligence is not dependent on cognitive ability alone, it’s only one variable.

Reading increases knowledge

Reading is one of the primary ways to acquire knowledge. The knowledge you gain is cumulative and grows exponentially. When you have a strong knowledge base, it’s easier to learn new things and solve new problems. Reading a wide range of books will help expand your general knowledge. Specific knowledge can be acquired by taking a deep-dive on a subject or topic. Filling your mind with new facts, new information, and new ideas will make you a better conversationalist as you’ll always have something interesting to talk about.

Reading strengthens focus and concentration

In order to comprehend and absorb what you’re reading, you need to focus 100% of your attention on the words on the page. When you’re fully immersed in a book, you’ll be able to tune out external distractions and concentrate on the material in front of you. A consistent reading habit will strengthen your attention span which will carry over to other aspects of your life.

Reading enhances analytical thinking skills

You can develop your analytical thinking skills over time by consistently reading more books. Reading stimulates your brain, allowing you to think in new ways. Being actively engaged in what you’re reading allows you to ask questions, view different perspectives, identify patterns and make connections. Compared to other forms of communication, reading allows you more time to think by pausing to comprehend, reflect and make note of new thoughts and ideas.

Reading relieves stress

A 2009 study has shown that reading is more effective at reducing stress than listening to music, going for a walk, having a cup of coffee or tea, or playing video games. Reading for only six minutes is enough to slow your heart rate, ease tension in your muscles and lower stress hormones like cortisol. “Losing yourself in a book is the ultimate relaxation” according to Dr. David Lewis, who conducted the study.

Reading improves your imagination

Reading a good novel can transport you to another place, another time or another world. You can escape reality and temporarily forget about what’s bothering you. Exercising your imagination will improve your ability to visualize these new worlds, characters and perspectives. Opening your mind to new ideas and new possibilities makes you more creative and more empathetic.

Reading helps you sleep better

The addition of reading to your bedtime ritual will reduce stress and train your brain to associate reading with sleep. This will make it easier to fall asleep and allow you to enter into a deeper sleep. TV, smartphone and tablet screens emit blue light which disrupts your internal clock and negatively impacts the quantity and quality of your sleep. Avoid reading on a screen at least an hour before bed and read a physical book instead.

You might also like:   How To Read More Books

• Episode List
• Upcoming Guests

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Learn More

We are also a participant in the Onnit Affiliate Program. We will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking a link to Onnit.com.  Get 10% Off Supplements at  Onnit  with Code: GETONNIT

6 Scientific Benefits of Reading More

By abigail fagan | may 21, 2024.

Reading transports us to worlds we would never see, introduces us to people we would never meet, and instills emotions we might never otherwise feel. It also provides an array of health benefits. Here are six scientific reasons you should be picking up more books .

Reading reduces stress.

Reading (especially reading books) may add years to your life., reading improves your language skills and knowledge of the world., reading enhances empathy., reading boosts creativity and flexibility., reading can help you transform as a person..

In 2009, scientists at the University of Sussex in the UK assessed how different activities lowered stress by measuring heart rate and muscle tension. Reading a book or newspaper for just six minutes lowered people’s stress levels by 68 percent—a stronger effect than going for a walk (42 percent), drinking a cup of tea or coffee (54 percent), or listening to music (61 percent). According to the authors, the ability to be fully immersed and distracted is what makes reading the perfect way to relieve stress.

A daily dose of reading may lengthen your lifespan. A team at Yale University followed more than 3600 adults over the age of 50 for 12 years. They discovered that people who reported reading books for 30 minutes a day lived nearly two years longer than those who read magazines or newspapers. Participants who read more than 3.5 hours per week were 23 percent less likely to die, and participants who read less than 3.5 hours per week were 17 percent less likely to die. “The benefits of reading books include a longer life in which to read them,” the authors wrote.

In the 1990s, reading pioneer Keith Stanovich and his colleagues conducted dozens of reading studies to assess the relationship between cognitive skills, vocabulary, factual knowledge, and exposure to certain fiction and nonfiction authors. They used the Author Recognition Test (ART), which is a strong predictor of reading skill. Stanovich tells Mental Floss that the average result of these studies was that avid readers, as measured by the ART, had around a 50 percent larger vocabulary and 50 percent more fact-based knowledge.

Reading both predicts and contributes to those skills, according to Donald Bolger , a human development professor at the University of Maryland who researches how the brain learns to read. “It’s like a snowball effect,” he tells Mental Floss. “The better you are at reading, the more words you learn. The more words you learn, the better you are at reading and comprehending—especially things that would have been outside your domain of expertise.”

For a 2013 Harvard study, a group of volunteers either read literary fiction (such as “ Corrie ” by Alice Munro), popular fiction (such as “ Space Jockey ” by Robert Heinlein), nonfiction (such as “How the Potato Changed the World” by Charles Mann), or nothing. Across five experiments, those who read literary fiction performed better on tasks like predicting how characters would act and identifying the emotion encoded in facial expressions. These speak to the ability to understand others’ mental states, which scientists call Theory of Mind.

“If we engage with characters who are nuanced, unpredictable, and difficult to understand, then I think we’re more likely to approach people in the real world with an interest and humility necessary for dealing with complex individuals,” study lead author David Kidd , a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, tells Mental Floss.

“In our real lives, we often feel like we have to make a decision, and therefore we close our mind to information that could eventually help us,” says Maja Djikic , a psychologist at the University of Toronto. “When we read fiction, we practice keeping our minds open because we can afford uncertainty.”

Djikic came to that conclusion after she conducted a study in which 100 people were assigned to read a fictional story or a nonfiction essay. The participants then completed questionnaires intended to assess their level of cognitive closure, which is the need to reach a conclusion quickly and avoid ambiguity in the decision-making process. The fiction readers emerged as more flexible and creative than the essay readers—and the effect was strongest for people who read on a regular basis.

It’s not often that we can identify moments when our personality changes and evolves, but reading fiction may help us do just that. The same University of Toronto research team asked 166 people to fill out questionnaires regarding their emotions and key personality traits, based on the widely used Big Five Inventory, which measures extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability/neuroticism, and openness. Then half of the group read Anton Chekhov’s short story “The Lady with the Toy Dog,” about a man who travels to a resort and has an affair with a married woman. The other half of the group read a similar nonfiction version presented as a report from divorce court. Afterwards, everyone answered the same personality questions they’d answered previously—and many of the fiction readers’ responses had significantly changed. They saw themselves differently after reading about others’ fictional experience. The nonfiction readers didn’t undergo this shift in self-reflection.

“As you identify with another person, a protagonist in the story, you enter into a piece of life that you wouldn’t otherwise have known. You have emotions or circumstances that you wouldn’t have otherwise understood,” Keith Oatley , a University of Toronto psychologist and one of the study’s authors, tells Mental Floss. Imagining new experiences creates a space in which readers can grow and change.

Discover More Articles About Books and Reading:

A version of this story ran in 2018; it has been updated for 2024.

Reading is Good Habit for Students and Children

 500+ words essay on reading is good habit.

Reading is a very good habit that one needs to develop in life. Good books can inform you, enlighten you and lead you in the right direction. There is no better companion than a good book. Reading is important because it is good for your overall well-being. Once you start reading, you experience a whole new world. When you start loving the habit of reading you eventually get addicted to it. Reading develops language skills and vocabulary. Reading books is also a way to relax and reduce stress. It is important to read a good book at least for a few minutes each day to stretch the brain muscles for healthy functioning.

Benefits of Reading

Books really are your best friends as you can rely on them when you are bored, upset, depressed, lonely or annoyed. They will accompany you anytime you want them and enhance your mood. They share with you information and knowledge any time you need. Good books always guide you to the correct path in life. Following are the benefits of reading –

Self Improvement: Reading helps you develop positive thinking. Reading is important because it develops your mind and gives you excessive knowledge and lessons of life. It helps you understand the world around you better. It keeps your mind active and enhances your creative ability.

Communication Skills: Reading improves your vocabulary and develops your communication skills. It helps you learn how to use your language creatively. Not only does it improve your communication but it also makes you a better writer. Good communication is important in every aspect of life.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Increases Knowledge: Books enable you to have a glimpse into cultures, traditions, arts, history, geography, health, psychology and several other subjects and aspects of life. You get an amazing amount of knowledge and information from books.

Reduces Stress: Reading a good book takes you in a new world and helps you relieve your day to day stress. It has several positive effects on your mind, body, and soul. It stimulates your brain muscles and keeps your brain healthy and strong.

Great Pleasure: When I read a book, I read it for pleasure. I just indulge myself in reading and experience a whole new world. Once I start reading a book I get so captivated I never want to leave it until I finish. It always gives a lot of pleasure to read a good book and cherish it for a lifetime.

Boosts your Imagination and Creativity: Reading takes you to the world of imagination and enhances your creativity. Reading helps you explore life from different perspectives. While you read books you are building new and creative thoughts, images and opinions in your mind. It makes you think creatively, fantasize and use your imagination.

Develops your Analytical Skills: By active reading, you explore several aspects of life. It involves questioning what you read. It helps you develop your thoughts and express your opinions. New ideas and thoughts pop up in your mind by active reading. It stimulates and develops your brain and gives you a new perspective.

Reduces Boredom: Journeys for long hours or a long vacation from work can be pretty boring in spite of all the social sites. Books come in handy and release you from boredom.

Read Different Stages of Reading here.

The habit of reading is one of the best qualities that a person can possess. Books are known to be your best friend for a reason. So it is very important to develop a good reading habit. We must all read on a daily basis for at least 30 minutes to enjoy the sweet fruits of reading. It is a great pleasure to sit in a quiet place and enjoy reading. Reading a good book is the most enjoyable experience one can have.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Would you like to explore a topic?

• LEARNING OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

Or read some of our popular articles?

Free downloadable english gcse past papers with mark scheme.

• 19 May 2022

The Best Free Homeschooling Resources UK Parents Need to Start Using Today

• Joseph McCrossan
• 18 February 2022

How Will GCSE Grade Boundaries Affect My Child’s Results?

• Akshat Biyani
• 13 December 2021

Benefits of Reading: Positive Impacts for All Ages Everyday

• May 26, 2023

From apps to social media to Netflix to video games, there are so many ways to fill your free time that it can be hard to decide what to do. It’s also easy to overlook one of the most fulfilling and beneficial pastimes ever created. Let’s look at the main benefits of reading and how you can highlight them to your child.

What are the main benefits of reading books?

Benefits of reading before bed.

• Benefits of reading to children

Benefits of reading out loud

Why is reading important.

• Does listening to audiobooks have the same benefits?

What are the benefits of reading fiction?

What are the benefits of reading poetry, it’s a gym for your brain.

The act of reading is a remarkable mental feat and reading comprehension uses a lot of your brain power. When you’re thumbing through a novel you’re building a whole world of people, places and events in your mind and remembering it all as you follow the story. This gives your imagination and memory a thorough workout and strengthens networks in various other parts of your brain too. 💪

If you’re reading a non-fiction book you’re also getting an in-depth experience of a subject full of facts and details that you need to hold in your mind to follow the arguments of the writer. 

It’s well known that your memory improves with use as new memories are created and connected to older ones, making them stronger and easier to recall. Scientists have even found that the other parts of the brain activated by reading can continue to improve days after you’ve stopped reading, meaning even just a little bit of reading can go a long way. 

It improves your focus

From Insta stories to tweets to TikTok videos, information is being packaged into ever smaller chunks and researchers believe our attention spans are getting shorter. However, being able to concentrate on one thing for long periods and ignore distractions is essential for school and for work. Reading is an excellent way to improve your concentration skills and the more you read, the better you’ll be able to focus. 🔍

It expands your vocabulary

Reading expands your vocabulary more than any other activity. A rich vocabulary allows you to understand the world in a more sophisticated way. Reading is also great for your grammar skills and lets you communicate your thoughts and ideas more accurately in all areas of your life. 

It’s an education

Reading is the key to knowledge. Reading non-fiction books means you can learn about any subject you choose in as much detail as you want. Fiction allows you to learn about how other people all over the world live their lives and to put yourself in their shoes. This is a great way to improve your empathy and learn to approach other people with an open mind. 

It helps your problem-solving skills

Reading fiction is also fantastic preparation to learn how to solve various types of problems you may not yet have encountered in your own life. You get the chance to follow the characters through all kinds of situations and find out how they deal with challenges big and small. 

Maybe they make the right choices or maybe they don’t, either way, the writer has put a lot of thought and consideration into their story and you can always learn something from a character’s experiences. 🧩

It’s good therapy

Reading about difficult situations characters or real people experience can be hugely beneficial as well. It can be useful to read both fiction and non-fiction books about something you’re going through. Books can act as a type of therapy and help you to feel less alone in your situation. 

This bibliotherapy has proven effective in helping people deal with issues such as depression or other mood disorders. The NHS even prescribes books to help people through its Reading Well programme! 

Books offer the best value-for-money entertainment anywhere! There’s no expensive equipment to buy, no tickets to pay for and no monthly subscription fee. All you need is a library card for your local branch and you’re good to go! 

Your nearest library probably has tens of thousands of different books available, so you’re sure to find a title to hook you. If they don’t have something in particular you're looking for, you can even ask the librarian to order it from another library. 

Some libraries even offer ebooks on loan which you can add to your ereader or tablet 🏛️

It’ll inspire your child

If your children regularly see you reading you’ll be setting a good example. Children tend to copy what they see their parents do and they’ll soon be joining you storybook in hand for some quiet time you can enjoy together. 

It’s great for stress

It’s not most people’s first idea of a relaxation technique, but reading does an awesome job of helping you manage stress. According to research, reading can lead to a lower heart rate and blood pressure and a calmer mind and just six minutes of reading can bring your stress levels down by more than 66%. 

It helps you live longer!

If you still need another reason to commit yourself to read more, how about this: reading can actually help you live longer! Researchers discovered that those who read for half an hour a day had a 23% chance of living longer than people who didn’t read very much. In fact, readers lived around two years longer than non-readers! 🌳

So, if we’ve convinced you that you and your family need more reading in your lives, when is the best time to do it? Well, reading at bedtime allows you to kill two birds with one stone. 

It helps you get a good night’s sleep

Despite its importance, many of us don’t follow good sleep hygiene and spend the hours before bedtime staring at screens big and small, leading to difficulty falling asleep and affecting the quality of our slumber. The NHS found that one in three of us experience poor sleep. 

Choose to read an actual book before bedtime instead of checking your social media or watching Netflix and you can look forward to a better night’s rest. Reading fiction is a good way of relaxing the body and calming your mind and preparing for bed and has been shown to be as relaxing as meditation. 💤

It calms your child

If you treat your child to story time and read to them just before they go to bed you’ll discover that it’s perfect for calming them down and getting them in the right mood for sleep. As a bonus, they’ll get used to sitting still and concentrating on one thing for a long time.

  Benefits of reading to children

  Children can eventually enjoy all the benefits of reading mentioned above but whether they are too small to read much themselves or they just enjoy listening to you tell them a story, they can get some extra value out of the experience if you read to them regularly yourself. 

It gives them a love of learning

If you start by reading to your child you can get them hooked on books and start a habit that will last them throughout their lives and repay your investment over and over again. Children who learn to read for pleasure will go on to enjoy greater academic success throughout their education according to research. 👩🏽‍🎓

It gives them a head-start

Even if your little one is a toddler who isn’t ready to start reading storybooks by themselves, you can give their literacy skills an early boost and teach them to read by reading to them yourself. They might not understand everything but they’ll pick up enough to get the idea. Let them see the words on the page as you read and encourage them to turn the page when you get to the last word. 

By reading to them you’ll be helping them follow the natural rhythms of language, practise their listening skills and expose them to vocabulary they might not get to hear in their day-to-day lives.  

It brings you together

Time spent reading to your child is a wonderful chance to create some beautiful, cosy, loving memories together and strengthen your bond. It will become something like a regular adventure you and your child can look forward to doing together and will remember all your lives. 👩‍👦

It also gives you lots to talk about later and you can have enjoyable discussions about the characters, plots, dilemmas and mysteries you discover during your reading time. 

Even when your child starts to read for themselves, you don’t need to stop your shared storytime. You can swap it up, with them taking on the role of the reader as you listen or you can take turns reading to each other. 

  You’ve probably been taught that the best method of reading is in silence. However, research has found that quiet reading isn’t actually always the better option and that there are in fact some benefits of reading out loud. 📢

It helps you understand

It turns out that speaking as you read can help you understand texts better. You probably read aloud more than you realise. If you’ve ever received a slightly convoluted message or email or you’ve tried to read confusing legal jargon, you’ve probably found yourself repeating the words out loud to more clearly understand what was meant. ✅

It helps you remember

Or perhaps you’ve tried to memorise a phone number or the lines of a speech and you automatically started to say the information aloud to help you remember. 

Psychologists call this the “production effect” and have discovered that these tactics do actually help people remember things more easily, especially children. 📚

Research from Australia showed that children who were told to read out loud recognized 17% more words compared to children who were asked to read silently. In another study, adults were able to identify 20% more words they had read aloud. 

The theory is that because reading aloud is an active process it makes words more distinctive, and so easier to remember. 🧠

Why read? 

Reading is the most effective way to get information about almost everything and is the key ingredient in learning for school, work and pleasure. On top of this, reading boosts imagination, communication, memory, concentration, and empathy. It also lowers stress levels and leads to a longer life. 

Does listening to audiobooks have the same benefits as reading books?

It can be hard to concentrate for a long time and the experience of reading. With a real book you can quickly scan your eyes back over the page to reread what you’ve missed, this isn’t so easy with an audiobook. A psychology study showed that students who read material did 28% better on a test than those who heard the same material as a podcast. 

Reading fiction is a useful way to develop your empathy, social skills and emotional intelligence. Fictional stories allow you to put yourself in other people's shoes and see things from various perspectives. In fact, brain scans show that many of the parts of the brain you use to interact with other people are also activated when you’re reading fiction. 

Poetry is the home of the most creative, imaginative and beautiful examples of language and allows you to connect those powerful lines to real emotions all of us feel. Poetry is also efficient and a good poet can reveal deep ideas with a simple phrase. Reading poetry can also inspire your creativity and write some expressive verse of your own! 

Reading is something most of us have been doing all our lives and as a result, we can easily take it for granted, but it’s a great all-around experience for your mind and spirit. So, it's really worth digging out your library card and finding books you and your child can read together. 

If your child is having problems with reading, here at GoStudent we have education experts on standby to give you and them a helping hand in improving their literacy skills or any other learning challenges they need support with. Schedule a free trial lesson with GoStudent today!

Popular posts

• By Guy Doza

• By Joseph McCrossan
• In LEARNING TRENDS

• By Akshat Biyani

4 Surprising Disadvantages of Homeschooling

• By Andrea Butler

What are the Hardest GCSEs? Should You Avoid or Embrace Them?

• By Clarissa Joshua

1:1 tutoring to unlock the full potential of your child

More great reads:.

15 of the Best Children's Books That Every Young Person Should Read

• By Sharlene Matharu
• March 2, 2023
• 10 min read

Ultimate School Library Tips and Hacks

• By Natalie Lever
• March 1, 2023

How to Write the Perfect Essay: A Step-By-Step Guide for Students

• By Connie Kulis-Page
• June 2, 2022

Book a free trial session

Sign up for your free tutoring lesson..

• Utility Menu

• ARC Scheduler
• Student Employment

Some sample reading goals: 

To find a paper topic or write a paper;

To have a comment for discussion;

To supplement ideas from lecture;

To understand a particular concept;

To memorize material for an exam;

To research for an assignment;

To enjoy the process (i.e., reading for pleasure!).

Seeing Textbook Reading in a New Light Students often come into college with negative associations surrounding textbook reading. It can be dry, dense, and draining; and in high school, sometimes we're left to our textbooks as a last resort for learning material.

A supportive resource : In college, textbooks can be a fantastic supportive resource. Some of your faculty may have authored their own for the specific course you're in!

Textbooks can provide:

A fresh voice through which to absorb material. Especially when it comes to challenging concepts, this can be a great asset in your quest for that "a-ha" moment.

The chance to “preview” lecture material, priming your mind for the big ideas you'll be exposed to in class.

The chance to review material, making sense of the finer points after class.

A resource that is accessible any time, whether it's while you are studying for an exam, writing a paper, or completing a homework assignment. 

Textbook reading is similar to and different from other kinds of reading . Some things to keep in mind as you experiment with its use:

Is it best to read the textbook before class or after?

Active reading is everything, apply the sq3r method., don’t forget to recite and review..

If you find yourself struggling through the readings for a course, you can ask the course instructor for guidance. Some ways to ask for help are: "How would you recommend I go about approaching the reading for this course?" or "Is there a way for me to check whether I am getting what I should be out of the readings?" 

Marking Text

Marking text – making marginal notes – helps with reading comprehension by keeping you focused and facilitating connections across readings. It also helps you find important information when reviewing for an exam or preparing to write an essay. The next time you’re reading, write notes in the margins as you go or, if you prefer, make notes on a separate sheet of paper. 

Your marginal notes will vary depending on the type of reading. Some possible areas of focus:

What themes do you see in the reading that relate to class discussions?

What themes do you see in the reading that you have seen in other readings?

What questions does the reading raise in your mind?

What does the reading make you want to research more?

Where do you see contradictions within the reading or in relation to other readings for the course?

Can you connect themes or events to your own experiences?

Your notes don’t have to be long. You can just write two or three words to jog your memory. For example, if you notice that a book has a theme relating to friendship, you can just write, “pp. 52-53 Theme: Friendship.” If you need to remind yourself of the details later in the semester, you can re-read that part of the text more closely. 

Accordion style

If you are looking for help with developing best practices and using strategies for some of the tips discussed above, come to an ARC workshop on reading!

Register for ARC Workshops

• Assessing Your Understanding
• Building Your Academic Support System
• Common Class Norms
• Effective Learning Practices
• First-Year Students
• How to Prepare for Class
• Interacting with Instructors
• Know and Honor Your Priorities
• Memory and Attention
• Minimizing Zoom Fatigue
• Note-taking
• Office Hours
• Perfectionism
• Scheduling Time
• Senior Theses
• Study Groups
• Tackling STEM Courses
• Test Anxiety

• Our Mission

The Benefits of Reading for Pleasure

Reading for fun has numerous lifelong benefits, and we have ideas for how you can promote this habit among your students.

Why don’t students read? Most teachers have the goal of promoting students’ lifelong love of reading. But why? And what can teachers and parents and librarians do to promote pleasure reading?

In our book Reading Unbound , Michael Smith and I argue that promoting pleasure reading is a civil rights issue. Data from major longitudinal studies show that pleasure reading in youth is the most explanatory factor of both cognitive progress and social mobility over time (e.g., Sullivan & Brown, 2013 [PDF]; Guthrie, et al, 2001 ; and Kirsch, et al, 2002 [PDF]). Pleasure reading is a more powerful predictor than even parental socioeconomic status and educational attainment.

So if we want our students to actualize their full potential as human beings and their capacity to participate in a democracy, and if we want to overcome social inequalities, we must actively promote pleasure reading in our schools, classrooms, and homes.

The Pleasures of Reading

Pleasure reading can be defined as reading that is freely chosen or that readers freely and enthusiastically continue after it is assigned. Our students (like all other human beings!) do what they find pleasurable. You get good at what you practice, and then outgrow yourself by deliberately developing new related interests and capacities.

In our study, we found that reading pleasure has many forms, and that each form provides distinct benefits:

• Play pleasure/immersive pleasure is when a reader is lost in a book. This is prerequisite to experiencing all the other pleasures; it develops the capacity to engage and immerse oneself, visualize meanings, relate to characters, and participate in making meaning.
• Intellectual pleasure is when a reader engages in figuring out what things mean and how texts have been constructed to convey meanings and effects. Benefits include developing deep understanding, proactivity, resilience, and grit.
• Social pleasure is when the reader relates to authors, characters, other readers, and oneself by exploring and staking one’s identity. This pleasure develops the capacity to experience the world from other perspectives; to learn from and appreciate others distant from us in time, space, and experience; and to relate to, reciprocate with, attend to, and help others different from ourselves.
• Work pleasure is when the reader develops a tool for getting something functional done—this cultivates the transfer of these strategies and insights to life.
• Inner work pleasure is when the reader imaginatively rehearses for her life and considers what kind of person she wants to be and how she can connect to something greater or strive to become something more. When our study participants engaged in this pleasure, they expressed and developed a growth mindset and a sense of personal and social possibility.

Taken together, these pleasures explain why pleasure reading promotes cognitive progress and social possibility, and even a kind of wisdom and wholeness, and, in a larger sense, the democratic project.

Promoting the Pleasures of Reading

We need to help less engaged readers experience these same pleasures. That is our study’s major takeaway: We must make all five pleasures central to our teaching. We need to name them, actively model them, and then assist students to experience them.

To promote play pleasure, use drama techniques like revolving role play, in-role writing, and hot seating of characters in order to reward all students for entering and living through story worlds and becoming or relating to characters in the way that highly engaged readers do.

To promote intellectual pleasure, frame units as inquiry, with essential questions. Read a book for the first time along with your students—figure it out along with them, modeling your fits and starts and problems through think-alouds and discussion. Or pair an assigned reading with self-selected reading from a list, or a free reading choice that pertains to the topic. Use student-generated questions for discussion and sharing. Use discussion structures like Socratic seminar that make it clear there is no teacherly agenda to fulfill as far as topics or insights to achieve.

To promote social pleasure, be a fellow reader with students. Put a sign on your door: “Dr. Wilhelm is reading _____.” Read one of their favorite books. Foster peer discussion of reading and response in pairs, triads, small groups, literature circles, book clubs, etc. Do group projects with reading that are then shared and even archived. Have a free reading program and promote books through book talks, online reviews, etc.

To foster work pleasure, use inquiry contexts and work toward culminating projects, including service and social action projects.

To foster inner work pleasure, engage students in imaginative rehearsals for living, inquiry geared toward current and future action, or inquiry for service. Have students think as authors making choices and plan scenarios for characters in dilemmas or those trying to help the characters. Write to the future or to a future self.

Make no mistake, the next-generation standards worldwide require profound cognitive achievements. Meeting such standards and the demands of navigating modern life will require student effort and the honing of strategies over time. Promoting the power of pleasure reading is a proven path there.

Reading as a source of knowledge

• Open access
• Published: 13 December 2018
• Volume 198 , pages 723–742, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• René van Woudenberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-6539 1  

11k Accesses

3 Citations

29 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper argues that reading is a source of knowledge. Epistemologists have virtually ignored reading as a source of knowledge. This paper argues, first, that reading is not to be equated with attending to testimony, and second that it cannot be reduced to perception. Next an analysis of reading is offered and the source of knowledge that reading is further delineated. Finally it is argued that the source that reading is, can be both transmissive and generative, is non-basic, once was a non-essential but has become essential for many people, and can be unique.

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction

Knowing as Simply Being Correct

Cook Wilson on knowledge and forms of thinking

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

I shall be arguing that reading is a source of knowing or warranted belief. Footnote 1 Perception, memory, consciousness and reason have standardly been called sources of knowledge (e.g. Chisholm 1977 : p. 122; Audi 1998 : part I). As of lately testimony has been explicitly added to this illustrious list (Coady 1992 : p. 6; Plantinga 1993 : p. 77; Audi 1998 : ch. 5; Lackey 2008 ; McMyler 2011 : pp. 4–5; Faulkner 2011 ; Gelfert 2014 ). Footnote 2 One wonders, however, why certain items that intuitively seem to qualify as a “source of knowledge”, such as reading, Footnote 3 occur on no epistemologist’s list of sources. Footnote 4

One wonders, for it has been suggested that a source of knowledge is that “from” which knowledge or warranted belief “comes”. (Moser et al. 1998 : p. 101; Audi 2002 : p. 82) It has also been suggested that a source of knowledge is “roughly, something in the life of a knower … that yields belief constituting knowledge” (Audi 2002 : p. 72). Given these suggestions, reading would seem to qualify as a source, as much knowledge that we have does “come from” reading. In this paper I discuss two possible explanations why epistemologists in the broadly analytic tradition have never considered reading as a source of knowledge, and argue that both are unsatisfactory. The first explanation is that reading is just one form of attending to testimony and hence requires no special attention (Sect.  1 ), the second that reading is a special case of perception and hence requires no special attention (Sect.  2 ). In Sect.  3 I offer an analysis of reading, while Sect.  4 gives a richer delineation of the source of knowledge that is associated with reading. Section  5 applies a number of epistemological distinctions that can be found in the literature to this source, so as to further delineate its nature. The final section summarizes the main conclusions.

2 Reading isn’t necessarily attending to testimony

The first possible explanation that I want to consider as to why reading isn’t considered as a separate source of knowledge is that reading is just an instantiation of the more general phenomenon of acquiring knowledge through testimony. The idea is that acquiring knowledge through testimony comes in a variety of forms of which reading is one, listening another, and that whatever epistemically relevant can be said about acquiring knowledge through testimony, carries over to reading. Hence, so the explanation goes, there is no need for epistemologists to pay special attention to reading.

In order to be able to evaluate this explanation, we need to be clear about what testimony is. Various accounts of testimony have been offered. I will discuss three such accounts and argue that on each of them knowledge acquired through reading is not identical with knowledge acquired through testimony. C.A.J. Coady has offered the following account of ‘natural’ testimony (as opposed to ‘formal’ testimony of the sort that is offered in court rooms):

A speaker S testifies by making some statement p, iff (1) S’s stating that p is evidence that p and is offered as evidence that p (2) S has the relevant competence, authority, or credentials to state truly that p (3) S’s statement that p is relevant to some disputed or unresolved question (which may or may not be whether p?) and is directed to those who are in need of evidence on the matter. (Coady 1992 : p. 42)

There are two points I should like to make about Coady’s account. First, given this account of testimony there are many cases of acquiring knowledge or warranted belief through reading that just aren’t cases of acquiring knowledge or warranted belief through testimony . Suppose you open a copy of Graham Greene’s A Gun for Hire , read the opening sentence “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven”, and thereby acquire the knowledge that Greene’s novel opens with that sentence, then you aren’t acquiring this knowledge on the basis of Coadyan testimony, for condition (1) isn’t satisfied: Greene doesn’t offer his statement as evidence that murder didn’t mean much to Raven; nor is condition (3) satisfied: Greene’s opening sentence isn’t relevant to some disputed or unresolved question, and it isn’t directed to people who are in need of evidence on the matter of Raven. And this isn’t an isolated case. All of the following are things one may come to know, in the contexts sketched between square brackets, through reading, without that knowledge qualifying as being acquired on the basis of Coadyan testimony (for ease of future reference I include the example just given):

That the first line Graham Greene’s novel reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” [you have opened the book that you know is written by Graham Greene, and have read the opening sentence]

That the text contains a lot of metaphorical expressions [you have read the text and noticed this fact]

That the poem is a sonnet [you are familiar with the formal characteristics of a sonnet]

That the book is humorous [the writer doesn’t say or imply so much, but upon reading you find yourself laughing]

That the article contains an invalid argument [you followed the argument on offer, and notice that the conclusions doesn’t follow from the argument]

That the review is based on a misunderstanding of the book [you know the book very well]

That the book is a warning call not to harbor grudges in one’s heart [this point is not explicitly stated, but from the development of the book’s main character you conclude so much]

That the author of the novel assumes that p [not that he says this explicitly, but it is the inevitable though unobvious conclusion you must draw, given the points that the author does explicitly make]

That the author is intimately familiar with the Scottish Enlightenment [you are an historian that specializes in that period, and even though the book is not a history book, it contains so many adequate allusions to the Scottish Enlightenment, that the conclusion forces itself upon you]

That what the Dutch did in the Caribbean was wrong [the reader is offered a ‘clean’ neutral statement of facts and figures without the author making any moral or evaluative statement whatsoever]

That the square root of 2 is not a rational number [you have followed and comprehended the proof that was offered, and judged it, rightly, to be sound]

The point of this list is not that these things can not be known through Coadyan testimony. For surely there are contexts, others than the ones indicated between the square brackets, in which one can and does come to know the things described on the list on the basis of Coadyan testimony. Knowledge of all the propositions listed can be acquired when Coady’s three conditions are satisfied. Rather, the point of the list is that one can come to know these things through reading in a way that does not qualify as believing on the basis of Coadyan testimony, viz. in the contexts that are sketched between the square brackets. For in none of these cases are Coady’s three conditions jointly satisfied. Condition (1) is not satisfied in any of the cases on the list, as the propositions specified aren’t offered as evidence. Neither is condition (2) satisfied: the sketches of the contexts provide no indication about the authors’ competence, credentials, and authority. Nor is condition (3) satisfied, as the propositions aren’t relevant to some disputed or unresolved question, nor are they directed to people who are in need of evidence on the matters at hand. But even though Coady’s conditions aren’t jointly satisfied, and so knowing the specified propositions in the contexts as sketched can not be considered as knowledge based on Coadyan testimony, knowing the specified propositions (in the contexts specified) does qualify as knowledge acquired through reading. From which it follows that reading isn’t coextensive with attending to Coadyan testimony.

My second point about Coady’s account is that, as Jennifer Lackey has argued, it doesn’t capture what we ordinarily take testimony to be, as there are clear cases of testimony that don’t satisfy (1), (2) and/or (3). Statements in posthumously published private journals and diaries that were never intended by their writers to be read by others, fail Coadyan condition (1): they aren’t offered as evidence, nor need they be relevant to some disputed question. But now suppose, to adapt an example from Lackey ( 2008 : p. 18), you read Sylvia Plath’s posthumously published diary in which she says that she was regularly deeply depressed. Then you likely come to know that she was regularly deeply depressed. When asked what the epistemic source of your knowledge is, the intuitively correct answer is that it is testimony. For you don’t know this through sense perception (you haven’t seen her depressed), nor through memory (you don’t remember it), or reason (you don’t derive this as a conclusion from a number of facts that you are aware of) or introspection or any combination of these sources. You acquired this knowledge from an expression of Plath’s own thoughts—her thoughts are, for you, testimony. This example also shows that Coady’s condition (3) isn’t necessary for someone’s testifying: after reading her diary, you will know through Plath’s own testimony that she was regularly depressed, but you had no evidential needs.

As Lackey ( 2008 : p. 17) has also argued, Coady’s condition (2) isn’t necessary for what we ordinarily take testimony to be either. This condition entails that one doesn’t testify, unless one has the competence, authority or credentials to state truly that p. Now someone who lacks these properties may not be a very reliable testifier. But she is still capable of testifying. Her testimony may not be an epistemically good source of belief. But she can testify nonetheless. People who give false testimonies about, for example, others testify nonetheless; they testify falsely. And false testimony is testimony as much as a bad squash player is still a squash player.

All of this is obviously relevant for my argument that reading is a source of knowledge that is not coextensive with attending to testimony. For if Coady’s account of testimony is wrongheaded, my list of things that we may come to know through reading even though that doesn’t qualify as attending to Coadyan testimony won’t bear much weight. Let us therefore turn to another account and see whether on that account acquiring knowledge of the things that are on the list (in the contexts as sketched between square brackets), does qualify as the acquisition of knowledge through testimony. On this account, testimony is “people’s telling us things” (Audi 1998 : p. 131), or “tellings generally” with “no restrictions either on subject matter or on the speakers epistemic relation to it” (Fricker 1995 : pp. 396–7). Related is the view that testimony requires “only that it be a statement of someone’s thoughts or beliefs, which they might direct to the world at large and to no one in particular” (Sosa 1991 : p. 219). The essence of this broad view, as Lackey ( 2008 : p. 20) states, can be put as follows:

S testifies that p, iff S’s statement that p is an expression of S’s thought that p.

It is clear that this account is not vulnerable to the objections just raised against Coady’s account. On this account Sylvia Plath’s statements in her private diary qualify as testimony, as do expressions of thoughts that are false. That is to say: on this account one can testify that p, even if one doesn’t offer one’s thought as evidence, even if one doesn’t have the relevant competence, authority or credentials to state truly that p (i.e. even if the testimony is false), and even if one doesn’t express one’s thought that p to people who are in need of evidence regarding p.

Regarding the broad view of testimony, I also make two remarks. First, on this account too, we can acquire knowledge of the propositions on the list, in the contexts as sketched, while it doesn’t qualify as knowledge acquired by broad testimony. Take (b) for example, that the text contains a lot of metaphors : someone can know this through reading, even if this proposition is not an expression of the author’s thought. The same holds for (c), that the poem is a sonnet : this can be known through reading, even when this proposition is no part of the thought that the poet wanted to express. The same holds for most, or even all, of the other items on the list. Let me just cover case (a) that may seem an exception.

It may seem an exception, because the fact that Greene’s A Gun for Hire opens with “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” might be considered to express a thought that Green had about one of his fictional characters, and so as testimony. However, we must tread carefully here. For the knowledge that the reader acquires upon reading the opening page of the novel is that the first line of the book reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven”. This proposition, however, is not a thought that is expressed in the opening page of Greene’s fine novel. Hence that proposition is not broadly testified by Greene, which means, in turn, that the reader’s knowing that proposition on the basis of reading, is not an instance of knowing that proposition on the basis of broad testimony.

I am not going down my list any further here, as the point I want to make should be clear by now: there are cases of acquiring knowledge through reading that don’t qualify as instances of acquiring knowledge on the basis of broad testimony. The point is well made even if some of the items on the list were to qualify as instances of acquiring knowledge through broad testimony.

My second remark, however, is that this account is too broad. There are expressions of thought that, intuitively, do not qualify as testimony. What prevents these expressions of thought from qualifying as testimony is that they are non-informational. Here is an example. It is a beautiful day, you are hiking in the mountains with a friend, and you say “Oh, what a beautiful day it is!” This is an expression of your thought, but it isn’t testimony, for, as Lackey says, this expression of your thought “is neither offered nor taken as conveying information”. (Lackey 2008 : p. 21) Of course, in special circumstances, the very same expression of your thought can qualify as testimony, for in stance when the person your are with is blind and takes the expression of your thought as conveying the information that it is a beautiful day. What this suggests, Lackey says, is that when an expression functions merely as a conversational filler, as it does in the initial example, it doesn’t qualify as testimony.

In addition to mere conversation fillers there are other kinds of expressions of thought that do not qualify as testimony. Adapting a point from Lackey, think of exhortations. You say to your son who is training for half the marathon “You can do it!” By saying this, you express a thought of yours, but it isn’t testimony, as you don’t offer what you say as conveying the information that your son can do it, nor does your son take what you say as conveying the information that he can do it.

Let me finally consider Lackey’s so-called disjunctive account of testimony that takes its cue from the distinction between testimony as an intentional act on the part of a speaker or writer and testimony as a source of belief or knowledge for the hearer or reader (Lackey 2008 : p. 27) and which forms the basis for her distinction between speaker testimony (s-testimony) and hearer testimony (h-testimony). Before presenting the full account, some terminology need be introduced. First, the notion of an “act of communication”:

A is an act of communication iff by performing A, a speaker or writer intends to express communicable content. (It does not require that the speaker or writer also intends to communicate that content to others.)

When Plath wrote in her diary for only private purposes, she was engaging in acts of communication, as she had the intention to express communicable content, even if she had no intention to communicate that content to others. It is possible, then, to engage in acts of communication without intending to communicate to others, i.e. it is possible to express communicable content, without intending to communicate that content to others. Of course, the two intentions may go together, but the point is that they needn’t.

Second, the notion of “conveying information”. Acts of communication, for instance Plath’s writing in her diary, “convey information”. What does it mean for an act of communication A to convey the information that p? Rather than defining this notion, Lackey provides paradigmatic cases. An act of communication A conveys the information that p, she says, when, for example, (1) A is the utterance of a declarative sentence that expresses proposition p, or (2) when < p > is an obvious (uncancelled) pragmatic implication of A. (Lackey 2008 : p. 31)

With the notions of “acts of communication” and “conveying information” thus clarified, Lackey defines speaker testimony and hearer testimony as follows:

Speaker Testimony S s-testifies that p by performing A iff, in performing A, S reasonably intends to convey the information that p (in part) in virtue of A’s communicable content. (Lackey 2008 : p. 30)

Hearer Testimony S h-testifies that p by performing A iff H, S’s hearer, reasonably takes A as conveying the information that p (in part) in virtue of A’s communicable content. (Lackey 2008 : p. 32)

The account of s-testimony requires that a speaker intends to convey information to her hearer and in that sense requires that a speaker’s A be offered as conveying information. The clause “in part in virtue of A’s communicable content” is included in order to exclude cases like the following: you sing in a soprano voice “I have a soprano voice” and you intend to convey the information that you have a soprano voice in virtue of the perceptual content of your sung assertion, not in virtue of the communicable content of your sung assertion; you intend to convey the information that you have a soprano voice by your singing in soprano voice , and not by the content of the words that you sing . In this case you are not s-testifying that you have a soprano voice. But you would be s-testifying that you have a soprano voice when you would just say “I have a soprano voice” or say “I have one of the women’s voices, but not the alto”. Had you said the latter, you would still have conveyed the information that you have a soprano voice—for there is a reasonably obvious connection between “I have a soprano voice” and “I have one of the woman’s voices, but not the alto”.

Whereas s-testimony requires some intention on the part of the speaker to convey information, no such intention is required for h-testimony. H-testimony captures the sense in which testimony can serve as a source of belief or knowledge for others, regardless of the testifier’s intention to be such an epistemic source. Crucial for h-testimony is that the hearer or reader takes the speaker’s or writer’s A to convey information.

It follows from these accounts that a speaker or writer can s-testify without h-testifying, vice versa. But they can also go together. Lackey’s official statement of the Disjunctive Account of Testimony is as follows:

S testifies that p by making an act of communication A iff (in part) in virtue of A’s communicable content (1) S reasonably intends to convey the information that p and/or (2) A is reasonably taken as conveying the information that p. (Lackey 2008 : pp. 35–36)

Let me now return to the question for which the presentation of Lackey’s account was propaedeutic: is all knowledge we can acquire through reading, knowledge based on Lackyan testimony? Let me go down the list. Regarding (a): as indicated, the knowledge a reader of the first line of A Gun for Hire acquires through reading is that the first line of that book reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven”. This knowledge is not based on Greene’s s-testimony, as Greene did not intend to convey the information that the first line of A Gun for Hire reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” . This is not to deny that it is possible to think up a scenario in which someone’s knowing this is based on Greene’s s-testimony. Suppose Jane is Greene’s neighbor, and she has asked him what the title of his new book will be and what its opening sentence will be. Greene’s answer is that the title is A Gun for Hire , and its opening line “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven”. Jane’s knowledge that the first line of A Gun for Hire reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” in this case is based on Greene’s s-testimony. But in the case as originally described, the reader acquires the indicated knowledge not through s-testimony. Nor does she acquire it through h-testimony, for it is not the case that a reader, upon reading “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” takes this to convey the information that the first line of A Gun for Hire reads “Murder didn’t mean much to Raven” . So, the knowledge acquired in the context as described in case (a) is knowledge through reading, but it is not knowledge through Lackeyan testimony.

That a specific text contains a lot of metaphorical expressions , or that it is a sonnet , or that it is humorous , as in cases (b), (c), and (d) is, in the contexts as sketched, knowledge acquired through reading. But it surely isn’t acquired through the author’s s-testimony: the author’s acts of communication aren’t intended to convey the information that the text contains a lot of metaphorical expressions , or that it is sonnet , etc. Nor is it acquired through the author’s h-testimony: the reader doesn’t take the author’s acts of communication to convey the information that the text contains a lot of metaphorical expressions , etc. This means that the knowledge acquired in these cases is not based on Lackey testimony.

Likewise, that the article contains an invalid argument , or that the review is based on a misunderstanding , or that the book is a warning call not to harbor grudges in one’s heart , or that the author assumes that p, as in (e), (f), (g) and (h), in the contexts as sketched, is known through reading. But that knowledge isn’t based on either s-testimony, nor on h-testimony. To write this out for (f): the reviewer certainly doesn’t intend to convey the information that his review is based on a misunderstanding, so the review doesn’t qualify as s-testimony; nor can a reader reasonably take the review’s communicable content to express the information that the review is based on a misunderstanding , so the review doesn’t qualify as h-testimony either. Which means that the knowledge acquired just isn’t based on Lackey testimony.

Likewise, that the author is intimately familiar with the Scottish Enlightenment , or that what the Dutch did in de Caribbean was wrong , or that the square root of 2 is not a rational number , as in (i), (j), and (k), is, in the contexts as sketched, knowledge acquired through reading. But it isn’t knowledge based on Lackeyan testimony. To write this out for (k): when you come to know that the square root of 2 is not a rational number, because you have read, followed and comprehended the proof, then your knowledge isn’t based on s- or h-testimony, as you now “see”, intellectually, for yourself that this is true.

The conclusion of this section should be clear by now. The lack of attention that reading has received among analytic epistemologists, cannot be explained by reference to the alleged fact that knowledge acquired through reading just is a token of the type knowledge acquired through testimony. What a reader may come to know through reading isn’t, or isn’t necessarily, coming to know through testimony . I showed that this is true given three different accounts of testimony: Coady’s, Audi’s (and others) and Lackey’s. The list that I offered lists things that someone may come to know through reading, while the knowledge thus acquired does not qualify as testimonial knowledge. I have indicated that we may come to know any of the things on this list also through testimony, as someone may testify any of these things to us. But the point I have been eager to establish is that when we read texts, we can, in the appropriate circumstances, also just through reading come to know things. If I am correct in arguing that acquiring knowledge through reading isn’t coextensive with acquiring knowledge through testimony, then there is a prima facie case that reading merits special epistemological attention.

3 Reading isn’t just seeing words

The second possible explanation of the inattention that epistemologists have paid to reading is that reading just is an instance of perception, and therefore merits no special attention. “Reading” is just the name for the perception of a particular kind of objects, viz. words Footnote 5 and sentences. The fact that we have no special name for seeing horses, or paintings, but that we do have a special name for seeing words and sentences, this explanation says, should not seduce us into thinking that reading is in any principled way different from seeing horses and paintings.

This explanation is uncompelling. Reading is not just seeing a particular kind of objects, viz. words and sentences, whereas seeing a horse just is seeing a certain kind of animal, and seeing Van Gogh’s Sunflowers just is seeing a particular painting. One is just seeing something when one is having certain visual experiences of shapes, colors, and their relative positions in one’s visual field. One may just see a horse, without knowing or believing that it is a horse one is seeing, without even knowing or believing that it is an animal one is seeing, without even knowing or believing anything at all about what one is seeing. What I have referred to as just seeing , is what Fred Dretske initially called “object-perception” (as contrasted with fact-perception: seeing that the animal is a horse), and later on “simple seeing”. Footnote 6 According to Dretske simple seeing X is marked by the fact that it is compatible with having no beliefs about X. Footnote 7

It seems clear that reading isn’t just seeing words and sentences, it isn’t just looking at what are in fact words and sentences. For suppose you don’t know Greek, but have opened a Greek edition of Homer’s Odyssey ; then you are seeing words and sentences, but you aren’t reading. Footnote 8 Moreover, if reading would be just seeing words and sentences, it would have to be compatible with forming no beliefs about what one is reading. But that seems wrong. One isn’t reading unless one is forming such beliefs as that

this sentence is a statement, that sentence is a question the word W that is used here, means that the sentence S that is written here, means this the point that the author is navigating towards seems to be p given what is said about her, the main character could be a hero, but also a villain what the author says here, is rather implausible

If reading requires such beliefs to be occurrent, the requirement seems overly intellectually demanding. For when we read we don’t normally form explicit beliefs about words or sentences, what they mean, or what their illocutionary force is, etc. Normally we find ourselves understanding what a sentence says or means, without forming such explicit beliefs. That is to say, normally we form such beliefs dispositionally . It is only on special occasions, such as when we read difficult passages, that we form such beliefs occurrently. But if we take the notion of “belief” to cover both occurrent and dispositional belief, then we must say that reading involves believing.

So, reading isn’t just seeing . Still, there is a relation, or even multiple relations, between reading and seeing. What relation(s)? Here we do well to keep in mind that, as Nikolas Gisborne has said, “see” is a massively polysemous verb. (Gisborne 2010 : p. 118) Three senses are especially relevant for present purposes. First, there is a sense that we have already encountered when discussing the notion of “object perception”, which Gisborne calls the prototypical sense of”see”. In this sense to “see” is to perceive visually . In such sentences as “I can see the King and the Queen from here”, and “I saw the horse in the field”, “see” is used in the prototypical sense. Second, “see” has a sense in which it is a knowledge ascription. And here two different classes of cases must be distinguished. First, there is the purely propositional sense of “see” that we find, for example, in such sentences as “I can see that the argument is valid”, and “The King saw that the Queen was right”. Here “see” has no visual meaning whatsoever. Second, there is the so-called perceptual propositional sense of “see that” that we find, for example, in such sentences as “Jane saw through the window that the child had crossed safely”, and “Harold sees that it is raining”. In these sentences “see” has both a prototypical sense and an epistemic sense. As Craig French has observed, “see” in propositional contexts where it has a prototypical sense, is evidential , by which he means that in such contexts “see” indicates that the source of the information in the that-clause is visual . (French 2012 : p. 122)

Returning to the relation between reading and seeing, we have already observed that reading involves “seeing” words and sentences in the prototypical sense, but that it is not identical with it. If one is reading, one may be “seeing” something in another sense as well. Suppose you read in the newspaper that the Queen is in Dublin, then you may say “I see in the newspaper that the Queen is in Dublin”. In this sentence “see” has not merely a prototypical sense (it is not just seeing words and sentences) but also an epistemic sense. Here “reading” involves “seeing” in the perceptual propositional sense. For “see” is used here in a propositional context and has a prototypical sense. Should we go further and say that reading is identical to “seeing” in the perceptual propositional sense? Footnote 9

Let us consider this matter starting from a slightly different question. Suppose we ask ourselves whether we can know what a word or sentence means through seeing . I want to approach this question via a detour through Thomas Reid’s distinction between original and acquired perception:

Our perceptions are of two kinds: some are natural and original, others acquired and the fruit of experience. When I perceive that this is the taste of cyder, that of brandy; that this is the smell of an apple, that of an orange … these perceptions are not original, they are acquired. But the perception which I have by touch, of the hardness and softness of bodies, of their extension, figure and motion, is not acquired, it is original. (Reid 1764 : p. 171)

The idea behind the distinction is that certain things can be perceived without any learning process, for example the hardness or softness of an object, while other perceptions do require learning, such as perceiving that this is the taste of brandy. The distinction also applies to seeing. Says Reid: “By sight we perceive originally the visible figure and color of bodies only, and their visible place”. Footnote 10 So original seeing includes seeing 2-dimensional shapes and patches of colors. Seeing a sphere, Reid held, is an instance of acquired perception, as it requires a learning process in which certain visual appearances become associated with certain tactile sensations. Other examples of acquired seeing are seeing that that is a horse, or seeing that it is one’s neighbor’s horse.

Reid’s distinction can be applied to reading. Reading involves seeing little curved and straight lines on a page, which instances original perception. Original visual perceptions can be described in sentences in which “see” has the prototypical sense. For example, in the sentences “Agnes saw black little curves on a white sheet of paper”, and “Agnes saw words on a page” “saw” has the prototypical sense. (I note that in these sentences “saw” denote simple seeing .)

But seeing that those little lines are Dutch words and sentences qualifies as acquired perception. For to see so much, one has to go through a learning process. Once one has the acquired perception that the little lines are the Dutch words “de”, “klomp”, “is” and “gebroken” respectively, one may furthermore see that these words, in this order, jointly constitute a grammatical Dutch sentence, which is yet another instance of acquired perception. These acquired perceptions can be described by sentences in which “see” has the perceptual propositional sense, as, for example, in the sentences “Agnes saw that the little lines formed a Dutch word”, and “Agnes saw that the words compose a Dutch sentence”. (I note that “saw” in these sentences is fact - perception .)

Upon seeing that the sequence of Dutch words “de”, “klomp”, “is” and “gebroken” form a grammatical sentence, one may “see” that that sentence expresses the proposition that the wooden shoe is broken . This is, again, an acquired perception. But this kind of acquired perception can not be described by sentences in which “see” has the perceptual propositional sense. It can only be described by sentences in which “see” has the purely epistemic sense. Take for example the sentence “Agnes saw that the string of Dutch words expresses the proposition that the wooden shoe is broken.” Here “saw” has no visual sense at all. (I note that here too “saw” denotes fact-perception.)

So, reading involves “seeing” in different senses:

just seeing little lines, just seeing words and sentences (original seeing; “see” has the prototypical sense)

seeing that the little lines are words and sentences (acquired seeing; “see” has the perceptual propositional sense)

seeing that the sentences express a particular proposition (acquired seeing; “see” has the purely epistemic sense)

Some more illustrations of “see” in the purely epistemic sense, used in the context of reading, might be helpful. When someone says, upon reading a particular text, that she now “sees” that the word ‘scientism’ is not used by its author in a pejorative way, then “see” is used in the purely epistemic, non visual, sense. When we read, and on that basis acquire a sense of what the words and sentences mean and “see” what the writer intended to say, then “see” is again used in a purely epistemic sense. Finally, when we don’t know what “to procrastinate” means, consult a dictionary and there “see” that it means “to put things of”, “see” is again used in the purely epistemic sense.

All of this goes to show that reading isn’t just seeing , which is the main point of this section. But what I said also goes to show that reading is not merely “seeing” in the perceptual propositional sense, but that it also involves “seeing” in the purely epistemic sense.

4 What is reading? An analysis

In this section I offer an analysis of reading, by formulating necessary and sufficient conditions for “person S is reading”. The previous section already made a start on this, by noting that someone may be just seeing words and sentences, and yet not be reading, because she doesn’t know that what she is seeing are words. This strongly suggests that (object-)seeing words and sentences is insufficient for reading, even if it is necessary for it.

One may also (fact-)see words and sentences, for instance see that what one is looking at are words, or see that they are Italian or Dutch words, but still not be reading. For example, you may know enough to be able to see that the words you are looking at are Italian or Dutch words, but since you don’t know what the words mean and have no grasp of the syntax of these languages, you still aren’t reading. One isn’t reading in these cases, because one doesn’t know the language, or doesn’t know it well enough. This strongly suggests, first, that fact-seeing words and sentences is insufficient for reading, even if it is necessary for it; and second that knowing the language to which the words belong is also necessary for reading.

Now one may (object-)see the words, fact-see that they are Italian or Dutch words, and even know these languages (so know what their words mean, know their syntaxes) and still not be reading. The graphic designer who is working on the lay-out of the pages of a book that is to be published, (object-)sees words, sees that they are English words, and, even knows the language, and yet may not be reading, for example because she is not focused on the content of the words, isn’t trying to get a sense of what the words jointly mean. This strongly suggests that focusing on the content, trying to get a sense of what the words jointly mean, is also necessary for reading. Footnote 11

This condition rules out the following interactions with words as instances of reading: someone is reading aloud words that belong to a language that he knows, but he does it, so to speak, “mechanically”; he reads up the words alright, but he is not attending to their content , not to what they mean . That person is parroting, i.e. “articulating sounds that have meaning”, but isn’t reading. So-called “reading-machines”, pieces of assistive technology that scan words and sentences and use a speech synthesizer to read them out loud, are also parroting; they aren’t reading.

The expression “what words jointly mean”, is complex Footnote 12 but I intend it to cover the meaning sentences Footnote 13 as well as the meaning of paragraphs or even larger textual unit. Footnote 14 The meaning of these items can be understood, or apprehended, with greater or lesser accuracy, in greater or lesser depth. But some apprehension of the joint meaning of words is required if there is to be reading. That is why stones and cats are incapable of reading—they don’t understand, or apprehend, the joint meaning of words. This is not to deny that certain animals can be trained to respond to words and sentences in ways that mimic the responses of humans who do apprehend their meaning. Upon being confronted with a blackboard on which the words “Now stamp with your right leg five times!” are written, both a horse and a person may respond by stamping five times with their right leg. But only be the person, not the horse, has read the words, as only the person, not the horse, has understood the joint meaning of the words. The horse is at best trained to behaviorally respond in a certain way to what are in fact words composing a sentence, but doesn’t understand the words, because he doesn’t see that they are words, and doesn’t know the language to which they belong.

It should be noted that a person can be reading even when he mis apprehends the words, when he mis understands what they mean. That is why, as we say, there are good, not so good, and bad readers. But even bad readers are readers, as they have some kind of understanding, some form of apprehension of what the units they are reading mean . It should also be noted that a person is still reading, even when she is unsure about the precise meaning of certain words, or passages.

The discussion so far suggests the following analysis of reading:

S is reading, iff (i) S object-sees words and sentences; (ii) S knows the language to which the words and sentences belong; (iii) S fact-sees words and sentences, i.e. S believes (mostly dispositionally) that what she is looking at are words and sentences that belong to this particular language, that this particular words means such and so, etc. (iv) S acquires, through object- and fact-seeing the words and sentences, some understanding of what the words and sentences jointly mean.

Three remarks should further elucidate this account. One . My analysis of reading is in terms of seeing. However, blind people who have mastered Braille can also read. For although they can’t see words and sentences, they can touch them—and touch them in such a way that by touching them, they acquire a sense of what the words jointly mean. Isn’t that reading? Well, if one thinks about reading in more general terms, for instance in terms of one’s sense organs “taking in” words with the effect that one thereby acquires an understanding or apprehension of what the words jointly mean, blind people using Braille can read. However, this approach also renders listening to an audio book an instance of reading, which is unwanted, as it entails that even analphabetic persons can read, which is a contradiction in terms. We should therefore, perhaps, say that in a literal sense only a seeing person can read—but that in an analogical sense also blind persons that know Braille can read. It is an interesting exercise to provide an account of reading in an analogical sense that doesn’t entail that listening to an audio book also qualifies as reading. I leave that for another occasion.

Two . Gestalt-psychologists have argued that when humans form a “percept” (a Gestalt ), the “whole” of what is perceived has a reality of its own, that is, in a way that I won’t try to specify, independent of the reality of the perceived parts. We can see a whole face even if we are only subsidiarily aware of the face’s parts; the reality of seeing a whole face is, in some way, independent of seeing the parts that jointly compose the face. Reading also involves Gestalt -perception, in the sense that at least experienced readers don’t read texts by reading letter by letter and word by word. Rather they read by seeing larger “wholes”, not individual letters, but whole words; and often not even individual words, but entire parts of sentences, and even full sentences (when they are not too long). That is why clause (iii) explains S’s fact-seeing letters and words dispositionally : even if, when reading, readers mostly don’t form occurrent beliefs such as this is the letter “E” , or here is the word “Everything” , they do either dispositionally believe such things (in the way you dispositionally believe that Paris is the capital of France even when sound asleep, or mentally occupied by rather different matters) or have a disposition to believe them (in the way you have a disposition to believe you are shorter than 40 m upon being asked whether you are—and you have never ever entertained the proposition I am shorter than 40 m ).

Three . The proffered analysis isn’t committed to any view how reading and “interpreting” relate. It is not assuming that reading always involves interpretation, nor that it never does, nor that it sometimes does. The proposed analysis of reading is supposed to be such that the activity picked out by it, may yield knowledge of propositions of the sort listed in the beginning of Sect.  1 . Footnote 15

With this account of reading in place, I next discuss how to specify the source of knowledge that is, or is associated with, reading.

5 Reading as a source of knowledge

I have argued in Sects.  1 and 2 that we can come to know many things through reading, where reading is not attending to testimony, nor just seeing words and sentences. In other words, I have argued that reading is a source of knowledge that is coextensive with neither testimony, nor visual perception. However, the precise delineation of that source requires more attention. For what exactly, in the case of reading, is that “something in the life of a knower” that yields belief that can constitute knowledge? Three initially perhaps somewhat plausible candidates present themselves:

words and sentences

the reading of words and sentences

the reader’s emotive, logical, moral and other kinds of responses to the reading of words and sentences.

Candidate (A) can be written off almost immediately, as words on surfaces as such don’t yield beliefs, just as horses and paintings as such don’t yield perceptual beliefs. It is the reading of words and sentences that yields belief, just as it is the perception of horses and paintings that may yield belief. Yet we cannot simply settle on (B) as the best delineation of the source that reading is.

For the following reason. One of the things that we may come to know through reading, I suggested in Sect.  1 , example (d), is that a particular book humorous (Kingsley Amis’s Lucky Jim , for example), or horrifying (Bram Stoker’s Dracula , for example). However, we might need to be a bit more specific here. For the question arises: do we come to know these things (assuming we do come to know them) through reading (these) books , or do we come to know this through reading these books and through noticing our emotive responses to what we read ? If the former, then (B) is a sound delineation of the source, but if the latter, then (C). The argument for (C) is that we laugh out loud when we read Amis, and likely feel scared when we read Stoker, and that hadn’t we actually had these emotive responses, we wouldn’t have known through reading these books that they are humorous and horrifying respectively. Footnote 16 These examples suggest that the emotive responses we have while reading should be considered parts of the “something” in the life of the knower that can yield belief constituting knowledge.

In the same vein, we can come to know through reading, as in (e) on the list, that the article contains an invalid argument. But we cannot come to know this through reading, unless we also attend to our logic-sensitive responses to the argument that is presented in the article. This suggest that our logical responses to what we read must also be considered as parts of the source of knowledge that is associated with reading. This logical response is also operative in example (h), where the reader comes to know that the author assumes that p, as that is the inevitable though unobvious conclusion from what the author explicitly says. It is also operative in example (k), where the reader comes to know, through reading the proof, that the square root of 2 is not a rational number.

Also, one can come to know through reading, as in example (f), that the review is based on a misunderstanding. But in order to come to know this that way, one must remember what the work reviewed did say. So, to obtain the knowledge as described in (e), one must attend to what is stored in one’s memory, which suggests that the memorial responses to what is read must be considered part of the source that is associated with reading. This memorial response also accounts for example (i), where the reader comes to know that the author is intimately familiar with the Scottish Enlightenment.

Acquiring the knowledge that what the Dutch did in the Caribbean was wrong, as in example (j), from reading a ‘clean’ statement of facts and figures, requires that the reader attains to his moral sensibilities. These sensibilities should therefore also be considered as parts of the source of knowledge that is associated with reading.

Likewise, we can come to know that words are aesthetically pleasing, beautiful, sublime, uplifting, grave and the like; again in order to come to know this through reading , we must attend to the responses of our aesthetic sensibilities while reading.

The conclusion of this section thus seems to be that the “something” in the life of the knower that is connected with reading and that yields beliefs that constitute knowledge, is delineated by (C) rather than by (B). The source of knowledge that reading is, is the reader’s emotive, logical, moral and other kinds of responses to the words and sentences read.

However, it is also possible, given the cases that I have presented, to conclude that (B) delineates the source that reading is, and add to this that reading works the cognitive effects (provides knowledge) as specified in the cases on the list, often in conjunction with other sources. Case (e), for example, in which one comes to know through reading that the article contains an invalid argument, should then be analyzed as a case in which reading works its cognitive effect in conjunction with reason: through reading one comes to know what the argument is, and through reason one comes to know that it is invalid. And case (f), coming to know through reading that the review is based on a misunderstanding, should then be analyzed as a case in which reading works in conjunction with memory and reason: through reading one comes to know what it is that the reviewer says about the book, and in conjunction with memory and reason one comes to know that what the reviewer says is based on a misunderstanding. Similar kinds of things could be said about the other cases.

It seems to me that we should prefer the latter conclusion over the former. The reason is that someone can come to know through reading what the argument in the article is, and not see that it is invalid; yet that person has certainly read the article, and through it he has come to know what the argument was, even if his logical acumen left him. Or one can come to know through reading the facts and figures related to the Dutch presence in the Caribbean, and fail to come to know that what the Dutch did was wrong; yet the person has surely read the facts and figures, even if his moral sense didn’t work as it should. So, the reason why we should prefer the latter conclusion is that it more elegantly accounts for cases of these kinds, i.e. cases in which sources do not work in conjunction with each other.

6 The kind of source that reading is

In this section I attempt to further characterize the kind of source that reading is. I present some well-known distinctions that epistemologists have used to differentiate between kinds of sources, and apply them to reading.

Ernest Sosa has said, “There are faculties of two broad sorts: those that lead from beliefs to beliefs, and those that lead to beliefs but not from beliefs”. (Sosa 1991 : p. 225) The former he calls transmission faculties , the latter generation faculties . An example that he offers of the former is rationalist deduction: you believe that you are 1.94 m, from which you deduce that you are shorter than 30 m—which is a proposition that you also believe. An example that he offers of the latter is visual perception: this may generate the belief that the object you are looking at is round and yellow.

Sosa’s distinction can be recast in terms of “sources”. If we do that, we can see that reading often is a transmission source: I read your message that you will arrive at O’Hare airport next Tuesday on 6 pm: this is something you believe, and even know, and that I, through reading your message, now also believe (and know). However, reading is not only a transmission source. For as I have suggested, someone may come to know, by reading the book, that Lucky Jim is a very funny. Coming to know this that way, however, is not a matter of belief transmission. It isn’t that Kingsley Amis believed the book to be funny, and that he made This book is funny part of the propositional content of the book, and that I, by reading the book, picked up that proposition. Reading the book didn’t transmit belief or even knowledge, but generated it. In a similar vein: one may come to know, as in example (j), that what the Dutch did in the Caribbean was wrong by reading a ‘clean’ statement of facts and figures; if we assume that the author of the statement had no evaluative response to these facts and figures, it seems clear that when you come to know, through reading, that what the Dutch did was wrong, is not a matter of transmission but of generation of belief. So, reading is both a transmission and a generative source.

Audi distinguishes between sources that are ‘basic’ in the sense that they “yield knowledge without positive dependence on the operation of some other source of knowledge” and sources that are non-basic. (Audi 2002 : p. 72) Perception and reflection, he argues, are basic sources. One might know through perception that the flowers are yellow, and one might know through reflection that if two persons are first cousins, they share a pair of grandparents. In neither case does this knowledge positively depend on the operation of other sources. At the same time a basic source may be negatively dependent on the operation of some other source, in that one may acquire a defeater from other sources for a belief yielded by a basic source. If you believe, upon seeing them, that the flowers are yellow, but also remember that the shopkeeper tends to manipulate the lightning, then, even if the flowers are in fact yellow, your belief doesn’t constitute knowledge. This negative dependence on memory, however, doesn’t compromise the basicality of perception.

Reading is not a basic source—it is not a source that “yields knowledge without positive dependence on the operation of some other source of knowledge”. As argued in Sect.  2 , reading is positively dependent on perception. It is also positively dependent on memory; for when one reads a paper or newspaper or whatever, one needs to have some recollection of the earlier parts of what one has been reading in order to get a sense of what the words jointly mean. Also, as was argued in the previous section, reading is also positively dependent on sources like our aesthetic and moral sense, our reason and memory. There are many things we could not know through reading that we in fact can come to know through reading, without these other sources lending a helping hand.

Audi qualifies a source of knowledge as “essential” if “what we think of as ‘our knowledge’ in an over all sense would collapse” without it. (Audi 2002 : p. 74) He argues that memory, while not a basic source (as we cannot know anything from memory without coming to know it through some other source earlier), is an essential source. For without memory we would only know those parts and aspects that present themselves immediately to our senses. We wouldn’t recognize things, we wouldn’t know the past. Without memory, what we think of as ‘our knowledge in an overall sense’ would collapse indeed. Footnote 17

Audi’s category suggests there might also be epistemically in essential sources. Audi gives no examples, but might reading be one? Prior to the invention of writing, reading was not a source at all, and a fortiori not an essential source. Since the invention of writing, reading, for most people, seems to have been an inessential source, one that, although perhaps convenient, is not necessary to keep “what we think of as our knowledge in an overall sense” in tact. As we reach our own times, however, and note the ubiquity and centrality of the written media, the expansion of libraries and the world wide web, it seems that without reading these media, “what we think of as ‘our knowledge’ in an overall sense” would collapse indeed. Reading once was an inessential source, but as time went by it became for ever more people an essential source.

Audi defines a “unique source of knowledge” as a source that yields knowledge that “is not otherwise acquirable”. (Audi 2002 : p. 75) What we know through memory, can sometimes also be known through perception. One may remember that the flowers are wilting, but one may also see that they are. This means that neither memory nor visual perception is a unique source.

Is reading a unique source of knowledge? In many cases it is not. Much knowledge acquired through reading can or could also be acquired through some other source. Through reading so much in the newspaper, I may come to know that the Tate Gallery is open again; but I may also come to know this by just seeing that it is open again. However, a case could be made that sometimes at least reading is a unique source, depending on the sort of text that the words one is reading belong to. Reading certain kinds of poetry, for instance, or reading elaborate historical narratives may yield in a reader beliefs that constitute knowledge that could not be yielded by any other source. That particular knowledge of human psychology that can be yielded by reading John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men , may, perhaps, not be yielded by any other source. Footnote 18 If this is correct, reading can sometimes be a unique source of knowledge.

7 Conclusion

What I have been arguing, then, is, first, that reading isn’t coextensive with attending to testimony, nor with just seeing words and sentences. Next I proposed an analysis of reading in terms of (i) object-seeing words and sentences, (ii) knowing the language to which the words belong, (iii) fact-seeing words and sentences, so forming beliefs about them, (iv) an apprehension of what the words jointly mean. Next I argued that the source of knowledge that reading is, often works its cognitive effects in conjunction with other sources. Finally I suggested that the source of knowledge that reading is, is both transmissive and generative, non-basic, once not essential, but currently essential for many people, and sometimes unique. Footnote 19

In this paper, “source of knowledge” should be read as shorthand for “source of knowledge or warranted belief”, where “warrant” is a positive epistemic status but doesn’t entail truth.

Other important discussions of testimony don’t call testimony a source of knowledge, e.g. Foley ( 2001 ).

Listening intuitively also qualifies as a source of knowledge. In what follows I shall focus exclusively on reading, leaving it for another occasion to explore similarities and dissimilarities between reading and listening.

None of the following textbooks and non-textbooks even mention reading: Alston ( 1993 ), Audi ( 1998 ), BonJour ( 2002 ), Chisholm ( 1957 ), Dancy ( 1985 ), Dretske ( 1969 ), Gendler and Hawthorne ( 2006 ), Moser ( 1989 ), Plantinga ( 1993 ) and Pritchard ( 2006 ). The only philosopher on the analytic side that I know of who has written about reading is Wittgenstein ( 2009 ), sections 156–171; the concern there, however, is not epistemological.

“Words” must be understood here as including numerals and proper names.

Dretske ( 1969 : chapter 1) and Dretske ( 2000 : chapter 6). Audi ( 1998 : p. 15) calls this ‘simple perception’ too.

Simple seeing X and having no beliefs about X are compatible, even if much simple seeing in actual practice is accompanied by beliefs about X. Fact-seeing normally “builds on” simple seeing, in the sense that normally when one fact-sees that the animal is a horse , one also object-sees the horse. This is ‘normally’ so, but not always. For example, I can fact-see see that there is no horse in my study but that is not “built on” object-seeing a horse.

“Knowing a language” is a graded phenomenon, as a language can be known to rather different degrees; one person can know a particular language better than another person. But it is also the case that reading is a graded phenomenon: one person can be a better reader than another. And there is a relation between the two: the better one knows a language, the better a reader one tends to be. For an attempt to understand the metaphysics of graded phenomena, see Van Woudenberg and Peels ( 2018 ).

Dretske and many others as well, endorsed the so-called Entailment Thesis, according to which seeing that p, entails knowing that p. The Entailment Thesis has come under some attack in Turri ( 2010 ) and Pritchard ( 2012 ). Ranalli ( 2014 ) argues, convincingly, it seems to me, that the attack is unsuccessful.

Reid ( 1764 : p. 171). Reid, then, like Berkeley, held that what is given originally to sight is only two-dimensional (colors and 2D shapes, and 2D locations), and that three-dimensional shapes (cubes, spheres, etc.) are given originally only to touch. Van Cleve has argued that Reid and Berkeley were wrong here, due to the at the time unknown mechanism of stereopsis (Van Cleve 2015 : pp. 486–487). But even if Van Cleve is right, and Reid wrong here, this doesn’t vitiate the distinction between original and acquired perception.

Like “knowing a language” (see fn. 8), “getting a sense of the content, or capturing what the words jointly mean” is a graded phenomenon too. One reader can have a much better sense of what the words read jointly mean than another. So this condition too indicates a dimension in which one person can be a better reader than another. The condition suggests that the greater one’s understanding of the joint meaning of the words read, the better a reader one is.

See for that Van Woudenberg ( 2018 : pp. 112–122).

See Alston ( 2000 ): chapters 6 and 7.

A still very informative discussion of this notion is Skinner ( 1969 ).

It may be objected: doesn’t the account, focused as it is on words and meaning , imply that one cannot read the alphabet, as the letters of the alphabet aren’t words and individually (except from the alphabet’s first letter and the letter between ‘h’ and ‘j’) don’t mean anything? My response is: right, that isn’t reading; it fails the reading conditions. So when we say “S is reading the alphabet”, we are using “reading”, compared to Braille reading, in an even further extended analogical way.

It goes without saying that we could also come to know that these books are humorous and horrifying not through reading these books themselves, but because some authoritative person reports this fact.

BonJour ( 1998 ) is a forceful argument for the claim that reason (apriori rational insight) is an essential source.

A point in this direction is made by Gibson ( 2009 ).

For comments on material presented in an earlier version of this paper I am much indebted to Valentin Arts, Lieke Asma, Robert Audi, Wout Bisschop, Hans van Eyghen, Naomi Kloosterboer, Jennifer Lackey, Baron Reed, Rik Peels, Chris Ranalli, Jeroen de Ridder, Emanuel Rutten, and Nick Wolterstorff. Work on this paper was made possible by a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation on “The Epistemic Responsibilities of the University”. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author, and don’t necessarily coincide with those of the Foundation.

Alston, W. P. (1993). The reliability of sense perception . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Google Scholar  

Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Audi, R. (1998). Epistemology . London: Routledge.

Audi, R. (2002). The sources of knowledge. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 71–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

BonJour, L. (1998). In defense of pure reason . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BonJour, L. (2002). Epistemology. Classic problems and contemporary responses . Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield.

Chisholm, R. (1957). Perceiving. A philosophical study . Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Chisholm, R. (1977). Theory of knowledge (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony. A philosophical study . Oxford: Clarendon.

Dancy, J. (1985). Contemporary epistemology . Oxford: Blackwell.

Dretske, F. (1969). Seeing and knowing . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dretske, F. (2000). Simple seeing. In F. Dretske (Ed.), Perception, knowledge, and belief. Selected essays (pp. 97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faulkner, P. (2011). Knowledge on trust . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Foley, R. (2001). Intellectual trust in oneself and others . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

French, C. (2012). Does propositional seeing entail propositional knowing? Theoria, 78, 115–127.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fricker, E. (1995). Telling and trusting: Reductionism and anti reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Mind , 104 (1995), 393–411.

Gelfert, A. (2014). A critical introduction to testimony . London: Continuum.

Gendler, T. S., & Hawthorne, J. (Eds.). (2006). Perceptual experience . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, J. (2009). Literature and knowledge. In R. Eldridge (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and literature (pp. 467–485). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ginet, C. (1975). Knowledge, perception, and memory . Dordrecht: Reidel.

Gisborne, N. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words. Testimony as a source of knowledge . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McMyler, B. (2011). Testimony, trust, and authority . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moser, P. (1989). Knowledge and evidence . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moser, P. K., Mulder, D., & Trout, J. D. (1998). The theory of knowledge . New York: Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and proper function . New York: Oxford University Press.

Pritchard, D. (2006). What is this thing called knowledge? . London: Routledge.

Pritchard, D. (2012). Epistemological disjunctivism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ranalli, C. (2014). Luck, propositional perception, and the entailment thesis. Synthese, 191, 1222–1247.

Reid, T. (1764 [1997]). An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. In D. Brookes (Ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8, 3–53.

Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turri, J. (2010). Does perceiving entail knowing? Theoria, 76, 197–206.

Van Cleve, J. (2015). Problems from Reid . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Woudenberg, R. (2018). The nature of the humanities. Philosophy, 93 (2018), 109–140.

Van Woudenberg, R., & Peels, R. (2018). The metaphysics of degrees. European Journal of Philosophy, 26 (2018), 46–65.

Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker & J. Schulte, Trans.; revised 4th ed.). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

René van Woudenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to René van Woudenberg .

Rights and permissions

OpenAccess This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van Woudenberg, R. Reading as a source of knowledge. Synthese 198 , 723–742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02056-x

Download citation

Received : 26 May 2018

Accepted : 04 December 2018

Published : 13 December 2018

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02056-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sources of knowledge
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Essay on Benefits of Reading

Students are often asked to write an essay on Benefits of Reading in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Benefits of Reading

The joy of reading.

Reading is a rewarding habit that can entertain, inform, and inspire. It allows us to explore different worlds, cultures, and ideas, broadening our perspectives.

Improving Language Skills

Reading regularly enhances vocabulary and grammar, aiding in effective communication. It helps us express our thoughts and ideas more clearly.

Boosting Cognitive Abilities

Reading stimulates our brain, improving focus, memory, and analytical skills. It’s like a workout for the mind, keeping it healthy and sharp.

Nurturing Empathy

Through reading, we can experience diverse emotions and situations, fostering empathy and understanding towards others.

Promoting Mental Health

Reading can be a calming activity, reducing stress and promoting mental well-being. It’s a quiet refuge in a noisy world.

Also check:

• Speech on Benefits of Reading

250 Words Essay on Benefits of Reading

Introduction.

Reading, often perceived as a simple act of decoding words on a page, transcends beyond this basic perception, offering a myriad of benefits that enrich our lives. This essay explores the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of reading.

Cognitive Development

Reading is a powerful tool for cognitive development. It enhances our understanding of complex concepts and ideas, stimulating intellectual curiosity. It improves concentration, attention to detail, and analytical thinking, fostering problem-solving abilities. Furthermore, reading extends our vocabulary and comprehension skills, strengthening our communication abilities.

Empathy and Emotional Intelligence

Reading literature, particularly fiction, allows us to experience diverse perspectives, fostering empathy. It provides a safe space to navigate complex emotions, enhancing our emotional intelligence. This understanding can be applied in real-life situations, improving interpersonal relationships.

Mental Health Benefits

Reading acts as a form of escapism, reducing stress levels. The immersive nature of reading can provide a sense of tranquility, alleviating anxiety and depression. It also promotes better sleep quality, particularly when incorporated into a bedtime routine.

Life-long Learning

Reading fosters a culture of continuous learning. It provides access to a wealth of knowledge, encouraging self-improvement and personal growth. Moreover, it keeps us informed about global events and diverse cultures, nurturing a global perspective.

In conclusion, reading is not merely a hobby, but a potent tool for personal and intellectual growth. It enhances cognitive abilities, fosters empathy, promotes mental health, and cultivates a culture of lifelong learning. As college students, embracing the habit of reading can significantly enrich our academic journey and beyond.

500 Words Essay on Benefits of Reading

Reading is a fundamental skill that transcends the boundary of age, culture, and profession. It is an activity that is often underrated, yet it holds immense potential to enhance our lives in countless ways. This essay explores the profound benefits of reading, particularly focusing on cognitive enhancement, emotional intelligence, and personal growth.

Cognitive Enhancement

Reading is a cognitive exercise that stimulates various parts of the brain. It fosters mental agility, enhancing memory and attention span. As we delve into a book, we engage in a complex neural process where we associate symbols (words) with meanings and contexts. This process strengthens neural connections and builds new ones, improving overall cognitive function.

Moreover, reading exposes us to new ideas, concepts, and knowledge. It broadens our understanding of diverse subjects, from science and technology to philosophy and art. This intellectual nourishment fosters critical thinking skills, enabling us to analyze situations from multiple perspectives and make informed decisions.

Emotional Intelligence

Reading literature, particularly fiction, offers a unique opportunity to walk in someone else’s shoes. It allows us to empathize with characters, understand their motivations, and experience their emotions. This engagement fosters emotional intelligence, the ability to perceive, understand, and manage our own and others’ emotions.

Emotional intelligence is a crucial skill in today’s interconnected world. It enables us to navigate social situations effectively, build strong relationships, and lead with empathy. By reading, we can cultivate this skill, enhancing our interpersonal interactions and emotional well-being.

Personal Growth

Reading also contributes significantly to personal growth. It broadens our horizons, exposing us to different cultures, histories, and philosophies. This exposure fosters a global perspective, enabling us to appreciate diversity and understand our place in the world.

Furthermore, reading can be a source of inspiration and motivation. It can introduce us to stories of resilience, innovation, and achievement, encouraging us to strive for our own goals. It can also offer guidance and wisdom, helping us navigate life’s challenges.

In conclusion, reading is a powerful tool for cognitive enhancement, emotional intelligence, and personal growth. It is an activity that enriches our lives, providing intellectual stimulation, emotional depth, and personal insight. As we navigate the information age, where knowledge is power, the ability to read critically and empathetically becomes increasingly important. Therefore, we should embrace reading not merely as a pastime but as a pathway to a more enlightened, empathetic, and empowered existence.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Forest Our Lifeline
• Essay on Conservation of Forest and Wildlife
• Essay on Forest Resources

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Importance Of Reading Essay

Importance of Reading Essay

500+ words essay on reading.

Reading is a key to learning. It’s a skill that everyone should develop in their life. The ability to read enables us to discover new facts and opens the door to a new world of ideas, stories and opportunities. We can gather ample information and use it in the right direction to perform various tasks in our life. The habit of reading also increases our knowledge and makes us more intellectual and sensible. With the help of this essay on the Importance of Reading, we will help you know the benefits of reading and its various advantages in our life. Students must go through this essay in detail, as it will help them to create their own essay based on this topic.

Importance of Reading

Reading is one of the best hobbies that one can have. It’s fun to read different types of books. By reading the books, we get to know the people of different areas around the world, different cultures, traditions and much more. There is so much to explore by reading different books. They are the abundance of knowledge and are best friends of human beings. We get to know about every field and area by reading books related to it. There are various types of books available in the market, such as science and technology books, fictitious books, cultural books, historical events and wars related books etc. Also, there are many magazines and novels which people can read anytime and anywhere while travelling to utilise their time effectively.

Benefits of Reading for Students

Reading plays an important role in academics and has an impactful influence on learning. Researchers have highlighted the value of developing reading skills and the benefits of reading to children at an early age. Children who cannot read well at the end of primary school are less likely to succeed in secondary school and, in adulthood, are likely to earn less than their peers. Therefore, the focus is given to encouraging students to develop reading habits.

Reading is an indispensable skill. It is fundamentally interrelated to the process of education and to students achieving educational success. Reading helps students to learn how to use language to make sense of words. It improves their vocabulary, information-processing skills and comprehension. Discussions generated by reading in the classroom can be used to encourage students to construct meanings and connect ideas and experiences across texts. They can use their knowledge to clear their doubts and understand the topic in a better way. The development of good reading habits and skills improves students’ ability to write.

In today’s world of the modern age and digital era, people can easily access resources online for reading. The online books and availability of ebooks in the form of pdf have made reading much easier. So, everyone should build this habit of reading and devote at least 30 minutes daily. If someone is a beginner, then they can start reading the books based on the area of their interest. By doing so, they will gradually build up a habit of reading and start enjoying it.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Importance of Reading Essay

What is the importance of reading.

1. Improves general knowledge 2. Expands attention span/vocabulary 3. Helps in focusing better 4. Enhances language proficiency

What is the power of reading?

1. Develop inference 2. Improves comprehension skills 3. Cohesive learning 4. Broadens knowledge of various topics

How can reading change a student’s life?

1. Empathy towards others 2. Acquisition of qualities like kindness, courtesy

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

How Does Writing Fit Into the ‘Science of Reading’?

• Share article

In one sense, the national conversation about what it will take to make sure all children become strong readers has been wildly successful: States are passing legislation supporting evidence-based teaching approaches , and school districts are rushing to supply training. Publishers are under pressure to drop older materials . And for the first time in years, an instructional issue—reading—is headlining education media coverage.

In the middle of all that, though, the focus on the “science of reading” has elided its twin component in literacy instruction: writing.

Writing is intrinsically important for all students to learn—after all, it is the primary way beyond speech that humans communicate. But more than that, research suggests that teaching students to write in an integrated fashion with reading is not only efficient, it’s effective.

Yet writing is often underplayed in the elementary grades. Too often, it is separated from schools’ reading block. Writing is not assessed as frequently as reading, and principals, worried about reading-exam scores, direct teachers to focus on one often at the expense of the other. Finally, beyond the English/language arts block, kids often aren’t asked to do much writing in early grades.

“Sometimes, in an early-literacy classroom, you’ll hear a teacher say, ‘It’s time to pick up your pencils,’” said Wiley Blevins, an author and literacy consultant who provides training in schools. “But your pencils should be in your hand almost the entire morning.”

Strikingly, many of the critiques that reading researchers have made against the “balanced literacy” approach that has held sway in schools for decades could equally apply to writing instruction: Foundational writing skills—like phonics and language structure—have not generally been taught systematically or explicitly.

And like the “find the main idea” strategies commonly taught in reading comprehension, writing instruction has tended to focus on content-neutral tasks, rather than deepening students’ connections to the content they learn.

Education Week wants to bring more attention to these connections in the stories that make up this special collection . But first, we want to delve deeper into the case for including writing in every step of the elementary curriculum.

Why has writing been missing from the reading conversation?

Much like the body of knowledge on how children learn to read words, it is also settled science that reading and writing draw on shared knowledge, even though they have traditionally been segmented in instruction.

“The body of research is substantial in both number of studies and quality of studies. There’s no question that reading and writing share a lot of real estate, they depend on a lot of the same knowledge and skills,” said Timothy Shanahan, an emeritus professor of education at the University of Illinois Chicago. “Pick your spot: text structure, vocabulary, sound-symbol relationships, ‘world knowledge.’”

The reasons for the bifurcation in reading and writing are legion. One is that the two fields have typically been studied separately. (Researchers studying writing usually didn’t examine whether a writing intervention, for instance, also aided students’ reading abilities—and vice versa.)

Some scholars also finger the dominance of the federally commissioned National Reading Panel report, which in 2000 outlined key instructional components of learning to read. The review didn’t examine the connection of writing to reading.

Looking even further back yields insights, too. Penmanship and spelling were historically the only parts of writing that were taught, and when writing reappeared in the latter half of the 20th century, it tended to focus on “process writing,” emphasizing personal experience and story generation over other genres. Only when the Common Core State Standards appeared in 2010 did the emphasis shift to writing about nonfiction texts and across subjects—the idea that students should be writing about what they’ve learned.

And finally, teaching writing is hard. Few studies document what preparation teachers receive to teach writing, but in surveys, many teachers say they received little training in their college education courses. That’s probably why only a little over half of teachers, in one 2016 survey, said that they enjoyed teaching writing.

Writing should begin in the early grades

These factors all work against what is probably the most important conclusion from the research over the last few decades: Students in the early-elementary grades need lots of varied opportunities to write.

“Students need support in their writing,” said Dana Robertson, an associate professor of reading and literacy education at the school of education at Virginia Tech who also studies how instructional change takes root in schools. “They need to be taught explicitly the skills and strategies of writing and they need to see the connections of reading, writing, and knowledge development.”

While research supports some fundamental tenets of writing instruction—that it should be structured, for instance, and involve drafting and revising—it hasn’t yet pointed to a specific teaching recipe that works best.

One of the challenges, the researchers note, is that while reading curricula have improved over the years, they still don’t typically provide many supports for students—or teachers, for that matter—for writing. Teachers often have to supplement with additions that don’t always mesh well with their core, grade-level content instruction.

“We have a lot of activities in writing we know are good,” Shanahan said. “We don’t really have a yearlong elementary-school-level curriculum in writing. That just doesn’t exist the way it does in reading.”

Nevertheless, practitioners like Blevins work writing into every reading lesson, even in the earliest grades. And all the components that make up a solid reading program can be enhanced through writing activities.

4 Key Things to Know About How Reading and Writing Interlock

Want a quick summary of what research tells us about the instructional connections between reading and writing?

1. Reading and writing are intimately connected.

Research on the connections began in the early 1980s and has grown more robust with time.

Among the newest and most important additions are three research syntheses conducted by Steve Graham, a professor at the University of Arizona, and his research partners. One of them examined whether writing instruction also led to improvements in students’ reading ability; a second examined the inverse question. Both found significant positive effects for reading and writing.

A third meta-analysis gets one step closer to classroom instruction. Graham and partners examined 47 studies of instructional programs that balanced both reading and writing—no program could feature more than 60 percent of one or the other. The results showed generally positive effects on both reading and writing measures.

2. Writing matters even at the earliest grades, when students are learning to read.

Studies show that the prewriting students do in early education carries meaningful signals about their decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension later on. Reading experts say that students should be supported in writing almost as soon as they begin reading, and evidence suggests that both spelling and handwriting are connected to the ability to connect speech to print and to oral language development.

3. Like reading, writing must be taught explicitly.

Writing is a complex task that demands much of students’ cognitive resources. Researchers generally agree that writing must be explicitly taught—rather than left up to students to “figure out” the rules on their own.

There isn’t as much research about how precisely to do this. One 2019 review, in fact, found significant overlap among the dozen writing programs studied, and concluded that all showed signs of boosting learning. Debates abound about the amount of structure students need and in what sequence, such as whether they need to master sentence construction before moving onto paragraphs and lengthier texts.

But in general, students should be guided on how to construct sentences and paragraphs, and they should have access to models and exemplars, the research suggests. They also need to understand the iterative nature of writing, including how to draft and revise.

A number of different writing frameworks incorporating various degrees of structure and modeling are available, though most of them have not been studied empirically.

4. Writing can help students learn content—and make sense of it.

Much of reading comprehension depends on helping students absorb “world knowledge”—think arts, ancient cultures, literature, and science—so that they can make sense of increasingly sophisticated texts and ideas as their reading improves. Writing can enhance students’ content learning, too, and should be emphasized rather than taking a back seat to the more commonly taught stories and personal reflections.

Graham and colleagues conducted another meta-analysis of nearly 60 studies looking at this idea of “writing to learn” in mathematics, science, and social studies. The studies included a mix of higher-order assignments, like analyses and argumentative writing, and lower-level ones, like summarizing and explaining. The study found that across all three disciplines, writing about the content improved student learning.

If students are doing work on phonemic awareness—the ability to recognize sounds—they shouldn’t merely manipulate sounds orally; they can put them on the page using letters. If students are learning how to decode, they can also encode—record written letters and words while they say the sounds out loud.

And students can write as they begin learning about language structure. When Blevins’ students are mainly working with decodable texts with controlled vocabularies, writing can support their knowledge about how texts and narratives work: how sentences are put together and how they can be pulled apart and reconstructed. Teachers can prompt them in these tasks, asking them to rephrase a sentence as a question, split up two sentences, or combine them.

“Young kids are writing these mile-long sentences that become second nature. We set a higher bar, and they are fully capable of doing it. We can demystify a bit some of that complex text if we develop early on how to talk about sentences—how they’re created, how they’re joined,” Blevins said. “There are all these things you can do that are helpful to develop an understanding of how sentences work and to get lots of practice.”

As students progress through the elementary grades, this structured work grows more sophisticated. They need to be taught both sentence and paragraph structure , and they need to learn how different writing purposes and genres—narrative, persuasive, analytical—demand different approaches. Most of all, the research indicates, students need opportunities to write at length often.

Using writing to support students’ exploration of content

Reading is far more than foundational skills, of course. It means introducing students to rich content and the specialized vocabulary in each discipline and then ensuring that they read, discuss, analyze, and write about those ideas. The work to systematically build students’ knowledge begins in the early grades and progresses throughout their K-12 experience.

Here again, available evidence suggests that writing can be a useful tool to help students explore, deepen, and draw connections in this content. With the proper supports, writing can be a method for students to retell and analyze what they’ve learned in discussions of content and literature throughout the school day —in addition to their creative writing.

This “writing to learn” approach need not wait for students to master foundational skills. In the K-2 grades especially, much content is learned through teacher read-alouds and conversation that include more complex vocabulary and ideas than the texts students are capable of reading. But that should not preclude students from writing about this content, experts say.

“We do a read-aloud or a media piece and we write about what we learned. It’s just a part of how you’re responding, or sharing, what you’ve learned across texts; it’s not a separate thing from reading,” Blevins said. “If I am doing read-alouds on a concept—on animal habitats, for example—my decodable texts will be on animals. And students are able to include some of these more sophisticated ideas and language in their writing, because we’ve elevated the conversations around these texts.”

In this set of stories , Education Week examines the connections between elementary-level reading and writing in three areas— encoding , language and text structure , and content-area learning . But there are so many more examples.

Please write us to share yours when you’ve finished.

Want to read more about the research that informed this story? Here’s a bibliography to start you off.

Berninger V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham S., & Richards T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. J ournal of Learning Disabilities. Special Issue: The Language of Written Language, 35(1), 39–56 Berninger, Virginia, Robert D. Abbott, Janine Jones, Beverly J. Wolf, Laura Gould, Marci Anderson-Younstrom, Shirley Shimada, Kenn Apel. (2006) “Early development of language by hand: composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling.” Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), pp. 61-92 Cabell, Sonia Q, Laura S. Tortorelli, and Hope K. Gerde (2013). “How Do I Write…? Scaffolding Preschoolers’ Early Writing Skills.” The Reading Teacher, 66(8), pp. 650-659. Gerde, H.K., Bingham, G.E. & Wasik, B.A. (2012). “Writing in Early Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practices.” Early Childhood Education Journal 40, 351–359 (2012) Gilbert, Jennifer, and Steve Graham. (2010). “Teaching Writing to Elementary Students in Grades 4–6: A National Survey.” The Elementary School Journal 110(44) Graham, Steve, et al. (2017). “Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3) pp. 279–304 Graham, Steve, and Michael Hebert. (2011). “Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading.” Harvard Educational Review (2011) 81(4): 710–744. Graham, Steve. (2020). “The Sciences of Reading and Writing Must Become More Fully Integrated.” Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1) pp. S35–S44 Graham, Steve, Sharlene A. Kiuhara, and Meade MacKay. (2020).”The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research April 2020, Vol 90, No. 2, pp. 179–226 Shanahan, Timothy. “History of Writing and Reading Connections.” in Shanahan, Timothy. (2016). “Relationships between reading and writing development.” In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). New York, NY: Guilford. Slavin, Robert, Lake, C., Inns, A., Baye, A., Dachet, D., & Haslam, J. (2019). “A quantitative synthesis of research on writing approaches in grades 2 to 12.” London: Education Endowment Foundation. Troia, Gary. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/ Troia, Gary, and Steve Graham. (2016).“Common Core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State Assessments: A National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes.” Reading and Writing 29(9).

A version of this article appeared in the January 25, 2023 edition of Education Week as How Does Writing Fit Into the ‘Science of Reading’?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking

Reading has always been a source of knowledge, intelligence, and critical thinking, which is an essential element of a contemporary human being. However, books, articles, and other publications seem to be replaced by social media, TV series, and cinema. People tend to spend their free time besides a computer or smartphone with a massive flow of messages, posts, and useless information. Nevertheless, it might be supposed that with aging, a person starts dedicating himself or herself to various readings more. Such an assumption seems a relevant theme to investigate and conduct research on. In this paper, a research design for this investigation will be proposed.

The study will be designed as an experimental one – participants of different age groups will be given a certain amount of readings for one month. It will be claimed that it is important to read a minimum of 100 pages; no maximum limit will be set. After this period, to measure the results, the approach that will be applied is self-reporting because a questionnaire will be provided (Kail and Cavanuagh, 2015). The questions will be as follows; the first one will be “How much reading have you done during the past month?” The second question will be “Was the given time enough to consume all the readings?” The last one, “Was it a pleasure for you to take part in such an experiment?” The participants will be free to give as long answers as they want, so it would be easier to define their attitude to the experiment process. This is necessary to determine their fitness for reading and even their acceptance of the thought about it.

It seems apparent that the independent variable will be the age of the participants. Then, the dependent variable will be the number of pages read, as well as the extent of satisfaction of taking part in the experiment. It should be mentioned that the research will have several limitations. An exact quantity of answers may be invalid as some participants can give them being affected by bias to reading, especially the ones of young age. Nevertheless, it is expected to involve at least 120 participators, 30 for each sampling – childhood, adolescence, early and middle adulthood, and late adulthood.

Some ethical considerations are also expected – it will be vital to explain the aims of the experiment explicitly and coherently. Each participant should be acquainted with his or her role and what will be asked to do. After the above is explained, participators will be requested to give written permission of using the results of the study publicly; of course, their anonymity will be respected. For those under the age of majority, this permission will be asked from their guardians.

To conclude, the primary expected outcome of the study is to determine whether age is a substantial factor within the scope of reading or not. Given the fact that it is a crucial element of human development, the described above research design seems relevant and appropriate. Furthermore, the extent to which the character of readings is affected by age might also be defined as their range will be broad – starting from scientific studies and ending with short novels. All the ethical considerations will be addressed; thus, both the conductors and participants of the experiment will benefit from it.

Kail, R. V., & Cavanuagh, J. C. (2015). Human development: A life-span review (7 th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 21). Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking. https://studycorgi.com/reading-as-a-source-of-knowledge-intelligence-and-critical-thinking/

"Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking." StudyCorgi , 21 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/reading-as-a-source-of-knowledge-intelligence-and-critical-thinking/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking'. 21 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/reading-as-a-source-of-knowledge-intelligence-and-critical-thinking/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/reading-as-a-source-of-knowledge-intelligence-and-critical-thinking/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking." January 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/reading-as-a-source-of-knowledge-intelligence-and-critical-thinking/.

This paper, “Reading as a Source of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 14, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Essays About Reading: 5 Examples And Topic Ideas

As a writer, you love to read and talk to others about reading books. Check out some examples of essays about reading and topic ideas for your essay.

Many people fall in love with good books at an early age, as experiencing the joy of reading can help transport a child’s imagination to new places. Reading isn’t just for fun, of course—the importance of reading has been shown time and again in educational research studies.

If you love to sit down with a good book, you likely want to share your love of reading with others. Reading can offer a new perspective and transport readers to different worlds, whether you’re into autobiographies, books about positive thinking, or stories that share life lessons.

When explaining your love of reading to others, it’s important to let your passion shine through in your writing. Try not to take a negative view of people who don’t enjoy reading, as reading and writing skills are tougher for some people than others.

Talk about the positive effects of reading and how it’s positively benefitted your life. Offer helpful tips on how people can learn to enjoy reading, even if it’s something that they’ve struggled with for a long time. Remember, your goal when writing essays about reading is to make others interested in exploring the world of books as a source of knowledge and entertainment.

Now, let’s explore some popular essays on reading to help get you inspired and some topics that you can use as a starting point for your essay about how books have positively impacted your life.

For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers

Examples Of Essays About Reading

• 1. The Book That Changed My Life By The New York Times
• 2. I Read 150+ Books in 2 Years. Here’s How It Changed My Life By Anangsha Alammyan
• 3. How My Diagnosis Improved My College Experience By Blair Kenney

4. How ‘The Phantom Tollbooth’ Saved Me By Isaac Fitzgerald

5. catcher in the rye: that time a banned book changed my life by pat kelly, topic ideas for essays about reading, 1. how can a high school student improve their reading skills, 2. what’s the best piece of literature ever written, 3. how reading books from authors of varied backgrounds can provide a different perspective, 4. challenging your point of view: how reading essays you disagree with can provide a new perspective, 1.  the book that changed my life  by  the new york times.

“My error the first time around was to read “Middlemarch” as one would a typical novel. But “Middlemarch” isn’t really about plot and dialogue. It’s all about character, as mediated through the wise and compassionate (but sharply astute) voice of the omniscient narrator. The book shows us that we cannot live without other people and that we cannot live with other people unless we recognize their flaws and foibles in ourselves.”  The New York Times

In this collection of reader essays, people share the books that have shaped how they see the world and live their lives. Talking about a life-changing piece of literature can offer a new perspective to people who tend to shy away from reading and can encourage others to pick up your favorite book.

2.  I Read 150+ Books in 2 Years. Here’s How It Changed My Life  By Anangsha Alammyan

“Consistent reading helps you develop your  analytical thinking skills  over time. It stimulates your brain and allows you to think in new ways. When you are  actively engaged  in what you’re reading, you would be able to ask better questions, look at things from a different perspective, identify patterns and make connections.” Anangsha Alammyan

Alammyan shares how she got away from habits that weren’t serving her life (such as scrolling on social media) and instead turned her attention to focus on reading. She shares how she changed her schedule and time management processes to allow herself to devote more time to reading, and she also shares the many ways that she benefited from spending more time on her Kindle and less time on her phone.

3.  How My Diagnosis Improved My College Experience  By Blair Kenney

“When my learning specialist convinced me that I was an intelligent person with a reading disorder, I gradually stopped hiding from what I was most afraid of—the belief that I was a person of mediocre intelligence with overambitious goals for herself. As I slowly let go of this fear, I became much more aware of my learning issues. For the first time, I felt that I could dig below the surface of my unhappiness in school without being ashamed of what I might find.” Blair Kenney

Reading does not come easily to everyone, and dyslexia can make it especially difficult for a person to process words. In this essay, Kenney shares her experience of being diagnosed with dyslexia during her sophomore year of college at Yale. She gave herself more patience, grew in her confidence, and developed techniques that worked to improve her reading and processing skills.

“I took that book home to finish reading it. I’d sit somewhat uncomfortably in a tree or against a stone wall or, more often than not, in my sparsely decorated bedroom with the door closed as my mother had hushed arguments with my father on the phone. There were many things in the book that went over my head during my first time reading it. But a land left with neither Rhyme nor Reason, as I listened to my parents fight, that I understood.” Isaac Fitzgerald

Books can transport a reader to another world. In this essay, Fitzgerald explains how Norton Juster’s novel allowed him to escape a difficult time in his childhood through the magic of his imagination. Writing about a book that had a significant impact on your childhood can help you form an instant connection with your reader, as many people hold a childhood literature favorite near and dear to their hearts.

“From the first paragraph my mind was blown wide open. It not only changed my whole perspective on what literature could be, it changed the way I looked at myself in relation to the world. This was heavy stuff. Of the countless books I had read up to this point, even the ones written in first person, none of them felt like they were speaking directly to me. Not really anyway.” Pat Kelly

Many readers have had the experience of feeling like a book was written specifically for them, and in this essay, Kelly shares that experience with J.D. Salinger’s classic American novel. Writing about a book that felt like it was written specifically for you can give you the chance to share what was happening in your life when you read the book and the lasting impact that the book had on you as a person.

There are several topic options to choose from when you’re writing about reading. You may want to write about how literature you love has changed your life or how others can develop their reading skills to derive similar pleasure from reading.

Middle and high school students who struggle with reading can feel discouraged when, despite their best efforts, their skills do not improve. Research the latest educational techniques for boosting reading skills in high school students (the research often changes) and offer concrete tips (such as using active reading skills) to help students grow.

It’s an excellent persuasive essay topic; it’s fun to write about the piece of literature you believe to be the greatest of all time. Of course, much of this topic is a matter of opinion, and it’s impossible to prove that one piece of literature is “better” than another. Write your essay about how the piece of literature you consider the best positive affected your life and discuss how it’s impacted the world of literature in general.

The world is full of many perspectives and points of view, and it can be hard to imagine the world through someone else’s eyes. Reading books by authors of different gender, race, or socioeconomic status can help open your eyes to the challenges and issues others face. Explain how reading books by authors with different backgrounds has changed your worldview in your essay.

It’s fun to read the information that reinforces viewpoints that you already have, but doing so doesn’t contribute to expanding your mind and helping you see the world from a different perspective. Explain how pushing oneself to see a different point of view can help you better understand your perspective and help open your eyes to ideas you may not have considered.

Tip: If writing an essay sounds like a lot of work, simplify it. Write a simple 5 paragraph essay instead.

If you’re stuck picking your next essay topic, check out our round-up of essay topics about education .

Amanda has an M.S.Ed degree from the University of Pennsylvania in School and Mental Health Counseling and is a National Academy of Sports Medicine Certified Personal Trainer. She has experience writing magazine articles, newspaper articles, SEO-friendly web copy, and blog posts.

View all posts

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Reading is a Good Habit Essay

An Essay On Reading Is A Good Habit

Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing (L-S-R-W) are the four skills of language learning. These are the set of four capabilities that allow an individual to comprehend and use a spoken language for proper and effective interpersonal communication. Reading is considered as one of the best habits anyone can possess. Reading helps a great deal in building our confidence, reduces stress and puts us in a better mood. It also develops our imagination and provides us with a fortune of knowledge. It is rightly said that books are our best friend as reading helps build up our wisdom and thinking capabilities. By developing the habit of reading, one can gain confidence in learning any language. The interest in reading, like any other habit, comes with time. Once a person starts reading, it becomes a part of habit and he/she starts to explore a whole new world.

Reading good books has a plethora of advantages. The habit of reading broadens our horizons and helps us become a better person in life. It also helps in developing a fresh viewpoint of life. The more we read, the more we fall in love with reading. It helps to develop vocabulary and language abilities. Reading is also one of the best ways to reduce anxiety as it provides relaxation and recreation. A book puts us in a better mood and allows us to have a strong imagination. At the end of a hectic and stressful day, all we need is a good book to help us rejuvenate and momentarily escape from the realities of life. 

The habit of reading must be inculcated in children from a young age. Reading is a great habit from the learning point of view as it boosts the understanding of language, improves vocabulary, helps in improving speaking and writing skills, etc. While reading a book, the plot and its characters hover in our imagination. It is said that reading builds imagination power more than any other form of activity. Anyone who has good reading skills shows indication of higher intelligence as reading helps to broaden our wisdom and knowledge to a great extent. It not only boosts our confidence but personality too. 

One of the most beneficial habits one can have is reading. It expands your creativity and provides you with a wealth of information. Reading helps you create confidence and improve your attitude, thus books are your best friend or partner. When you start reading every day, you'll discover a whole new world of information.

When you make it a practice to read every day, you will become addicted to it. Reading can help you develop cognitively and offer you a fresh perspective on life. Good novels can have a great impact on people and lead you down the correct path in life. The more time you spend reading, the more you will fall in love with it. The more time you spend reading, the more you will fall in love with it. Reading can help you improve your vocabulary and linguistic skills. Reading can help you unwind and de-stress.

Reading boosts your creativity and gives you a greater grasp of life. Reading also encourages you to write, and if you do so, you will undoubtedly fall in love with the craft. If you want to create excellent habits in your life, reading should be at the top of your list because it is essential to a person's general growth and development.

Good books will always point you in the right direction. The following are some of the advantages of reading books:

Self-improvement: Reading can help you think more positively. Reading is important because it molds your thinking and provides you with a wealth of information and life lessons. Books will help you have a better understanding of the world around you from a new perspective. It keeps your mind active, healthy, and helps you be more creative.

Communication Skills: Reading increases your vocabulary, enhances your language skills, and improves your communication skills. It teaches you how to be more creative with your thoughts. It not only improves your communication skills, but it also helps you improve your writing skills. In every element of life, effective communication is essential.

Increases your Understanding: Books provide you a foundational understanding of civilizations, customs, the arts, history, geography, health, psychology, and a variety of other topics and elements of life. Books provide an unlimited amount of information and wisdom. 

Reduces Stress: Reading a good book transports you to another world and helps you escape the stresses of everyday life. There are a number of beneficial impacts on your mind, body, and soul that aid with stress relief. It keeps your mind healthy and powerful by stimulating your brain muscles to perform efficiently.

Great Pleasure: Anyone who reads a book for pleasure does so. They delight in reading and gain access to a whole new universe. When you begin reading a book, you will become so engrossed in it that you will not want to put it down until you have finished it.

Enhances your Imagination and Creativity: Reading enhances your imagination and creativity by transporting you to a realm of imagination and, in some ways, increasing your creativity. Reading allows you to examine life from several perspectives. You generate inventive and creative thoughts, visions, and opinions in your mind while reading books. It encourages you to think outside of the box, imagine, and use your imagination.

Enhances your Analytical Abilities: Active reading allows you to gain access to a variety of viewpoints on life. It aids in the analysis of your thoughts and the expression of your opinions. Active reading brings new ideas and thoughts to mind. It activates and alters your brain, allowing you to see things from a different perspective.

Boredom is Lessened: Despite all the other social activities, long-distance travel or a protracted vacation from work can be tedious. In such instances, books come in handy and keep you from being bored.

Reading books adds knowledge and plays a great role in education. Whether it is fiction or nonfiction, we get to learn a great deal from books. It exposes us to the outer world which helps acquire sensibility and understanding of different social subjects. It is therefore very important to develop a good reading habit. We should all read daily for at least 30 minutes to enjoy the wonderful beneficial perks of reading. It is a great happiness to live in a calm place and to enjoy the moments of reading. Reading a good and informative book is one of the most rejuvenating and enthusiastic experiences a person can have. 

One must inculcate the habit of reading. Reading is said to be a great mental exercise. Reading also helps us release boredom. Reading allows us to sleep better. Hence, we must develop the habit of reading books before bedtime. Even in this digital age where any information is just a click away, reading has its own charm. The benefits of reading are irreplaceable as the detailed knowledge it provides is unmatched to anything we read on the internet. Happy reading!

FAQs on Reading is a Good Habit Essay

1. Why is the habit of reading so important?

Reading is important as it develops our thinking capacity and gives important life lessons. Reading molds our personality and makes us a better person. It also enhances our creativity and keeps our minds healthy and active. Reading improves communication and vocabulary skills. Whenever you try to speak in front of everyone, you are unable to speak proper English. This habit of speaking fluent English can only be corrected with the help of reading books regularly and speaking in English with your peers.

2. Why is the habit of reading declining?

The habit of reading is gradually declining. The advent of the internet is often described as the reason behind the changing habits of reading. Nowadays, most people go to the internet for information rather than reading books. The deterioration in reading habits can also lead to a decline in the world’s cultural development. Hence, people should give reading the importance it deserves. Accordingly, people are becoming lazier and not wanting to read as they find it a waste of time. The students nowadays find newspapers to be boring and they perceive mobile applications of new channels to be the ultimate source of news information.

3. What are the difficulties you will face if you don’t read?

If a student is unwilling to read and speak English or any other languages they intend to learn, then he or she will never be able to be creative and innovative in their approach to any other aspect of life. Reading opens up with the mind of the people and leads them to understand the concept of vocabulary and innovation. A lot of students struggle with their vocabulary and grammar. All of this is just done to help the students improve their speaking ability and experience. If you don't read then you won't be able to write good English literature answers in school as you won't be able to manage the content well.

ENG 101: The Informative Essay

• About the Informative Essay
• Developing Questions
• The Thesis Statement

Reading Scholarly Sources

• Collecting Scholarly Information
• Research Databases
• MLA Resources

How to read a scholarly article

Scholarly articles may look intimidating but there are tricks to using them without becoming overwhelmed. Unless you are a researcher on the exact subject, scholarly articles are NOT intended to be read in their entirety from the first word to the last! Reading the article is not your assignment, rather you are mining the article for information that relates to your topic.  

• Use the article’s format to navigate its information content:
• Read the title. If it matches your needs, go to 2; if not, move on to another article.
• Read the abstract. If it matches your needs, go to 3…
• Read the conclusion/discussion. If it matches your needs, go to 4…
• Read the introduction. If it matches your needs, go to 5...
• Scan the other sections of the article;
• Return and read any paragraphs that seem pertinent to your research; check citations from that paragraph in the bibliography for additional resources.
• Skip sections of the article that don’t pertain to your research.
• When you encounter unfamiliar terms, look them up in  reference resources ; similarly, refer to  scholarly book s for unfamiliar concepts.  Don't forget that people, like librarians , tutors , and teachers, are great resources when you're stuck.
• Be sure to scan the bibliography to find additional research resources.
• See Collecting Scholarly Information to learn how to use active reading techniques to get the most from your reading!

Anatomy of the Scholarly Article

Primary research articles typically include several sections: an abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion or conclusion, and a bibliography. 

The abstract is a summary of the paper. It usually highlights the main question/s the authors investigated, provides the key results of their experiments, and gives an overview of the authors' conclusions. Reading the abstract will help you decide if the article was what you were looking for without spending a long time reading the whole paper.

Introduction

The introduction gives background information about the topic of the paper, and sets out the specific questions to be addressed by the authors. Throughout the introduction, there will be citations for previously published articles or reviews that discuss the same topic. Use these citations as recommendations for other articles you can refer to for additional background reading.

Reading the introduction is a test of whether or not you are ready to read the rest of the paper; if the introduction doesn't make sense to you, then the rest of the paper won't either. If you find yourself baffled by the introduction, try going to other sources for information about the topic before you tackle the rest of the paper. Good sources can include reference sources ; a review article or earlier primary research article (perhaps one of the ones cited in the introduction); or your instructor.

Materials and Methods

The materials and methods section gives the technical details of how information was collected. Reading the methods section is helpful in understanding exactly  what  the authors did. After all, if you don't understand their methods, it will be impossible to evaluate their results and conclusions! This section also serves as a "how-to" manual if you're interested in carrying out similar studies.   The materials and methods section is most commonly placed directly after the introduction, or look for a URL "supplementary information" available online.

The results section is the real meat of a primary research article; it contains all the data from the experiments. The figures contain the majority of the data. The accompanying text contains verbal descriptions of the pieces of data the authors feel were most critical. The writing may also put the new data in the context of previous findings. However, often due to space constraints, authors usually do not write text for all their findings and instead, rely on the figures to impart the bulk of the information. So to get the most out of the results section, make sure to spend ample time thoroughly looking at all the graphs, pictures, and tables, and reading their accompanying legends!

Discussion or Conclusion

The discussion section is the authors' opportunity to give you their opinions. It is where they draw conclusions about the results. They may choose to put their results in the context of previous findings and offer theories or new hypotheses that explain the sum body of knowledge in the field. Or the authors may comment on new questions and avenues of exploration that their results give rise to. The purpose of discussion sections in papers is to allow the exchange of ideas between scholars. As such, it is critical to remember that the discussions are the authors' interpretations and not necessarily facts. However, this section is often a good place to get ideas about what kind of research questions are still unanswered in the field and thus, what types of questions you might want your own research project to tackle.

Bibliography - References or Endnotes

Throughout the article, the authors will refer to information from other scholarly publications. These bibliographic citations are all listed in the references section or endnotes. There will always be enough information (authors, title, journal name, publication date, etc.) for you to find the source at a library or online. This makes the bibliography incredibly useful for broadening your own literature search. Particularly note if there are citations in any paragraph in the current paper; if you want more information, you can find and read the articles cited in that paragraph (contact your librarian for help)!

Adapted from Science Buddies. (2017, August 9). How to read a scientific paper . ScienceBuddies.Org. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/competitions/how-to-read-a-scientific-paper

• << Previous: Finding Information
• Next: Collecting Scholarly Information >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 1:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.gateway.kctcs.edu/eng101

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 The Sources of Knowledge

Robert Audi is Professor of Philosophy and David E. Gallo Chair in Ethics at the University of Notre Dame. He works in ethics and in related philosophical fields, especially epistemology. His books include Action, Intention, and Reason (1993), The Structure of Justification (1993), Moral Knowledge and Ethical Character (1997), Religious Commitment and Secular Reason (2000), The Architecture of Reason (2001), The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value (2004), and Moral Value and Human Diversity (2007).

• Published: 02 September 2009
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article identifies the sources from which one acquires knowledge or justified belief. It distinguishes the “four standard basic sources”: perception, memory, consciousness, and reason. A basic source yields knowledge or justified belief without positive dependence on another source. This article distinguishes each of the above as a basic source of knowledge, with the exception of memory. Memory, while a basic source of justification, plays a preservative rather than a generative role in knowledge. This article contrasts basic sources with nonbasic sources, concentrating on testimony. After clarifying the relationship between a source and a ground, or “what it is in virtue of which one knows or justifiedly believes,” this article evaluates the basic sources' individual and collective autonomy as well as their vulnerability to defeasibility. It examines the relationship of coherence to knowledge and justification, noting the distinction between a negative dependence on incoherence and a positive dependence on coherence.

Knowledge can be adequately explicated only in relation to its sources. This is in part why perception, intuition, and other generally recognized sources of knowledge have been so extensively discussed in epistemology. These and other apparent sources of knowledge are also widely considered sources of justification, and they can serve as such even if justification is not entailed by knowledge. My concern here will be primarily with sources of knowledge; but in order to bring out their epistemological importance, I will connect these sources with justification as well. I am speaking, of course, as if we may suppose that there is knowledge. Anyone who accepts some version of skepticism may simply take what is said to apply to what would be sources of knowledge or justification if there should be any knowledge or justification of the kind in question. I begin with what might be called the standard basic sources of knowledge, proceed to distinguish them from nonbasic sources and from grounds of knowledge, and, with the account of epistemic sources then before us, turn to questions of defeasibility and completeness.

I. Basic Sources of Knowledge and Justification

If, in the history of epistemology, any sources of knowledge deserve to be called the classical basic sources, the best candidates are perception, memory, consciousness (sometimes called introspection ), and reason (sometimes called intuition ). Some writers have shortened the list under the heading, “experience and reason.” This heading is apt insofar as it suggests that there might be some unity among the first three sources and indeed some possibility of other experiential sources; it is misleading insofar as it suggests that experience plays no role in the operation of reason as a source of knowledge. Any operation of reason that is an element in consciousness may be considered a kind of intellectual experience. The reflection or other exercise of understanding required for “reason” to serve as a source of knowledge is certainly one kind of experience.

Let us first explore what it is for a source to be basic and some of the conditions under which beliefs it yields constitute knowledge (these might be called success conditions ). We can then consider what kind of source might be nonbasic and whether the four standard basic sources are the only basic ones.

I take it that a source of knowledge (or justification) is roughly something in the life of the knower—such as perception or reflection—that yields beliefs constituting knowledge. To call a source of knowledge (or of justification) basic is to say that it yields knowledge without positive dependence on the operation of some other source of knowledge (or of justification). Thus, I might perceptually know that the clock says ten by virtue of seeing its face displaying that time; and I might know by brief reflection that if two people are first cousins, they share a pair of grandparents.

It may seem that the perceptual knowledge is possible only if I remember how to read a clock and that therefore perception cannot yield knowledge independently of memory. It is true that perceptual knowledge of the kind in question depends on memory in a certain way. But consider this. A being could acquire the concepts needed for reading a clock at the very time of seeing one, and hence would not need to remember anything in order to form the belief that the clock says ten. One possibility here is the creation of a duplicate of someone like me: reading a clock would be possible at his first moment of creation. It appears, then, that although perceptual knowledge ordinarily depends in a certain way on memory, neither the concept of perception nor that of perceptual knowledge is historical . That of memory, however, is historical, at least in this sense: one cannot remember something unless one has retained it in memory over some period of time.

The concept of a basic source can be better understood through a different kind of example, one that brings out how even a basic source can yield beliefs that fail to constitute knowledge and how its success in producing knowledge may depend on what we believe through other basic sources. Suppose that I see the clock on the wall only at dusk, but still make out the hands and come to believe (correctly) that it says ten. I now turn on a bright light that shows me a system of mirrors which I remember my son has installed to deceive me in ways that amuse him. I realize that it can display a different clock with the same appearance. I now may have good reason to doubt that the clock on the wall says ten; for I realize that I would believe it did, even if I did not actually see it, but saw only the mirror image of a similar clock that does say ten. Here my would‐be perceptual knowledge that the clock says ten is defeated by my realization that I might well be deceived. That realization, in turn, depends in part on my memory of my son's antics. We have, then, a case illustrating that, even ordinarily, I would not know the clock says ten unless there were no suitably strong “opposition” from a source different from perception. This dependence of perception on factors beyond perceptual experience, however, is what I call negative dependence ; it does not show that perception is not a source of knowledge, but only that (at least) on occasion the source can be in some way blocked. 1

One may now suggest that perception is not even a positively independent source because it depends on consciousness. The idea would be that one cannot perceive without being conscious; hence, perception cannot yield knowledge apart from the operation of another source of knowledge. Let us grant for the sake of argument that perception requires consciousness. 2 If it does, that is because it is a kind of consciousness: consciousness of an external object. We might then simply grant that perception is perceptual consciousness and treat only “internal consciousness” (consciousness of what is internal to the mind) as a source of knowledge distinct from perception. Internal consciousness, understood strictly, occurs only where the object is either internal in the way images and thoughts are (roughly phenomenal) or abstract, as in the case of concepts and (presumably) numbers. On a wider interpretation, we might have internal consciousness of dispositional mental states, such as beliefs, desires, and emotions. But even when we do, it seems to be through consciousness of their manifestations that we are conscious of them, as when we are conscious of anxiety through being aware of a sense of foreboding or of felt discomfort, or of unpleasant thoughts of failure, or the like.

To be sure, one might also treat consciousness as a kind of perception: external perception where the perceived object is outside the mind, internal where that is inside. But abstract objects are not “in” the mind, at least in the way thoughts and sensations are. In any case, it is preferable not to consider consciousness of these a kind of perception. One reason for this is that there is apparently a causal relation between the object of perception and whatever sensation or other mental element constitutes a perceptual response to it, and it is at least not clear that abstract entities have causal power, or at any rate the requisite kind. 3 This issue is too large to pursue here, but it may be enough to note that not all mental phenomena seem to be either perceptual in any sense or to be directed toward abstract objects. Consider daydreaming or planning. Neither need concern the abstract, nor must we suppose that there are objects in the mind having properties in their own right. 4 It would be unwise to assume that perception exhausts the activity of consciousness.

It does appear, however, that we may take perception to be a partly causal notion. If you see, hear, touch, taste, or smell something, then it affects you in some way. And if you may be said to perceive your own heartbeat or even your own anxiety, this is owing to their causing you to have some experiential impression analogous to a sense impression you might have through the five senses. Conceived in this way, perception is not a closed concept : it leaves room for hitherto unfamiliar kinds of experiential response to count as the mental side of perceiving an object and indeed for new or unusual kinds of objects to be perceptible. 5 This is not the place, however, to give an account of exactly what perception is. Any of the basic sources could be the subject of a deservedly long study. Let us proceed to memory as an epistemic or justificational source.

If, in speaking of perception, we are talking about a capacity to perceive, in speaking of memory we are talking about a capacity to remember. But remembering does not exhaust the operation of our memorial capacity to the extent that perceiving exhausts the operation of the perceptual capacity. There is also recalling , which entails but is not entailed by remembering; there is recollecting , which is similar to recalling but tends to imply an episode of (sometimes effortful) recall, usually of a sequence or a set of details; and there are memory beliefs , which may be mistaken and do not entail either remembering or even recalling. It is plausible to maintain, however, that remembering that p (where p is some arbitrarily chosen proposition) entails knowing it; and we also speak of knowing things from memory. When we do know things (wholly) in this way, it is not on the basis of other things we know. One may know a theorem from memory and on the basis of a simple proof from an axiom, but where one knows p wholly from memory—simply by virtue of remembering it—one does not at the time know it on the basis of knowing or believing anything else.

These points make it natural to think of memory as a basic source of knowledge. But I think it would be a mistake to claim that it is one. It is an epistemically essential source ; that is, what we think of as “our knowledge,” in an overall sense, would collapse if memory did not sustain it: we could know only what we could hold in consciousness at the time (at least this is so if what we know dispositionally at a time must be conceived as held in memory at that time, even though it is true then that if we were to try to bring any one of the propositions to consciousness then, we would normally have it there then 6 ). By virtue of playing this role, memory is an epistemic source in an important sense. But surely one cannot know anything from memory without coming to know it through some other source. If we remember it and thereby know it, we knew it, and we must have come to know it through, say, perception or reasoning. 7

If memory is not a basic source of knowledge, it surely is a basic source of justification. It is not easy to capture just how it plays this role. But consider believing that one sent a certain friend a holiday card. There is a way this belief—or at least its propositional object—can present itself to one that confers some degree of justification on the belief (I think it can confer enough to allow the belief to constitute knowledge if one is correct and there is no defeater of one's would‐be knowledge, but there is no need to try to show that here). Someone might object that it is only by virtue of knowledge, though consciousness, of one's memorial images that we can be justified in such beliefs, but I very much doubt this. 8 A remembered proposition can surface in consciousness without the help of images and, often, can spontaneously surface upon the need for the proposition as an answer to a question or as a premise for an inference one sets out to make or sees to be needed.

Given the points made about memory so far, I suggest that it is an essential source of knowledge and a basic source of justification. In the former case it is preservative , retaining knowledge already gained; in the latter it may be generative , producing justification not otherwise acquired.

It is worth noting here that we may not say ‘not otherwise acquirable ’. Whatever can be known or justifiedly believed by a given person on the basis of memory can also be known or justifiedly believed in some other way, say through the testimony of someone else. This indicates another notion we need in understanding sources of justification and knowledge. A basic source of justification need not be a unique source , even relative to a single kind of justification (or knowledge).

If, however, memory is not a unique source, it remains true that the non‐memorial source that is in principle available to one may depend, for its production of genuine knowledge, on memory or on knowledge of, or justification about, the past. If testimony is the source, for instance, the person attesting to a past event depends either on his own memory or on someone else's. If so, we might think that although memory is not a unique source for primary knowledge or primary justification regarding the past—where primary knowledge and justification are the kinds that do not (evidentially) depend on the knowledge or justification of anyone else—it is a unique source for secondary knowledge or justification regarding the past , as in the case in which I rely on someone's testimony about it. Perhaps, however, at the moment of his creation my duplicate could see smoke and know, by the visible facts, that there has been a fire. If so, then simultaneous testimony from him could give others such historical knowledge without dependence, for any of them, on (the operation of) their own memory. My duplicate would, arguably, “inherit” a capacity for induction from me, and I could not have acquired that capacity without relying on my memory; but he would still not actually have to rely on his own memory to know that there has been a fire. Here, then, we could have knowledge of the past that does not require the exercise of memory by the primary knower. Even if memory is not a unique source of any kind of knowledge or justification, the concept of such a source is significant, and it will surface again shortly.

Consciousness has already been mentioned as a basic source of knowledge. It seems clear that if any kind of experience of what is going on in the world can yield knowledge, it is introspective consciousness. Even philosophers who take pains to give skepticism its due, such as David Hume, do not deny that we have knowledge—presumably noninferential knowledge—of our own current mental life. 9 Granted, it is only consciousness of the inner world—or at least of whatever can exist “in” consciousness—that is a basic source if outer perception—consciousness of the external world—is not a basic source. But the inner world is a very important realm. It might include abstract objects, such as numbers and concepts, as well as sensations, thoughts, and other mental entities.

When we come to reason, there is, as with memory, a need to clarify what aspects of this general capacity are intended. Like ‘memory’, the term ‘reason’ can designate quite different things. One is reflection, another reasoning, another understanding, and still another, intuition. We reflect on a subject, reason from a premise, understand a concept or proposition, and intuit certain truths. These are only examples, and there is overlap: any of the objects in question must be understood (adequately, though not perfectly) if it is to be an object of reason, and one may need to reflect on a truth that one intuits in order to grasp its truth.

It will help to focus on a simple example, such as the logical truth that if all human beings are vulnerable and all vulnerable beings need protection, then all human beings need protection. We can reason from the “premises” (in the if‐clause) to the “conclusion” (in the then‐clause); but an assertive use of the if‐then sentence in question need not represent giving an argument. Moreover, the proposition it expresses is not the kind that would (normally) be known by reasoning. It would normally be known by “intuition” or, in the case in which such direct apprehension of the truth does not come to a person, by reflection that indirectly yields understanding. (The conclusion —that all human beings need protection—may of course be known wholly by reasoning from the premises. One's knowledge of it then depends on one's knowledge of them, which will surely require reliance on a different basic source. But the proposition in question is the conditional one connecting the premises with the conclusion, and knowledge of it does not require knowledge of either the former or the latter.)

I suggest, then, that “reasoning” is not a good heading under which to capture the ratiocinative basic source we are considering, and that indeed if we distinguish reasoning from reflection of a kind that yields knowledge that p apart from reliance on independent premises, it is best not to use the term ‘reasoning’ in explicating this source. What seems fundamental about the source is that when knowledge of, or justification for believing, a proposition comes from it, it derives from an exercise of reason regarding the proposition. This may take no time beyond that required to understand a sentence expressing the proposition (which may be virtually none; nor need we assume that all consideration of propositions is linguistically mediated, as opposed to conceptual in some sense). Here it is natural to speak of intuiting. But the proposition may not be so easily understood, as (for some people) in the case of the proposition that if p entails q and q entails r , and either not‐ q or not‐ r is the case, then it is false that p . Here it is more natural to speak of reflection. In either case the source seems to operate by yielding an adequate degree of understanding of the proposition in question and thereby knowledge. It does not appear to depend (positively) on any other source and is plausibly considered basic. 10

It also seems clear that reason is a basic source of justification. Such simple logical truths as those with the form of, ‘If all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs , then all As are Cs ’ can be justifiedly believed, as well as known, simply on the basis of (adequately) understanding them. In at least the vast majority of the kinds of cases in which reason yields knowledge it apparently also yields justification. It can, however, yield justification without knowledge. Careful reflection can make a proposition seem highly plausible even though it later turns out to be false. If we are talking only of prima facie (hence defeasible) justification, there are many examples in logic and mathematics. Consider Russell's paradox. There seems to be a class of nonteaspoons in addition to a class of teaspoons. The latter, however, is plainly not a teaspoon, since it is a class. So, it is a nonteaspoon and hence a member of itself. The same holds for the class of nonphilosophers: being a non‐philosopher, it is a member of itself. There must then be a class of such classes—a class of all and only those classes that are not members of themselves. But there cannot be one: this class would be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. Thus, what appears, on the basis of an exercise of reason, to be true may be false.

It may be objected that it is only inferentially that one could here believe there is a class of all and only classes that are not members of themselves and that therefore it is not only on the basis of the operation of reason that one would believe this. But surely we may take reasoning to be one kind of such operation, particularly deductive reasoning. It is true that the basic kind of knowledge or justification yielded by a source of either is noninferential; there is no good reason, however, to rule that inferential cases may not be included.

To be sure, there is still the question whether inference depends on the operation of memory, in the sense that one may draw an inference from a proposition only if one remembers it. But surely one can hold some simple premises before one's mind and at that very time draw an inference from them. If we allow that knowledge or justification deriving from simple inferences such as those in question here need not depend on memory, we may conclude that it can be on the basis of inferential reason that the proposition in question is believed. It is a contingent matter whether such an inference does depend on the operation of memory. If one must write down the premises to keep track of them, it would. If, however, one can entertain the premises and conclusion together and at that time see their logical relation, it does not. The distinction between these two cases is not sharp but is often quite clear. 11

Even regarding reason, then, we cannot say that we have an infallible source of knowledge: one whose every cognitive deliverance is a case of knowledge. To call a source basic is to affirm a measure of epistemic autonomy; it is not to affirm any wholesale epistemic guarantee. It is not even clear that every “deliverance” of a basic source has prima facie justification. But this is a plausible view, if (1) we take a deliverance of a source to be a belief based on it and not merely caused by it, and (2) we allow that a belief can be prima facie justified even when its justification is massively overridden. Let us suppose (1) and (2) hold. Plainly this would not entail indefeasible justification. If we suppose, then, that there would be no knowledge or justification without basic sources of them, we still cannot reasonably conclude that every belief those sources deliver is justified on balance or, if true, constitutes knowledge.

If we now return to the question of uniqueness, we find that, for reason, a plausible case for uniqueness is available, since some propositions, such as simple logical truths, seem (ultimately) knowable and justifiedly believable only on the basis of reason. To be sure, even simple logical truths can be known on the basis of testimony, as where someone who is logically slow first comes to know one through the testimony of a teacher. But can such truths be known or justifiedly believed without dependence on reason somewhere along the line? It would seem that the teacher must depend on it, or on testimony from someone who does, or who at least must rely on testimony from someone else who depends on reason, and so forth. 12 If this is right, then at least for primary knowledge and justification regarding simple logical truths, uniqueness holds.

Might we, however, make the parallel claim for perceptual and introspective cases? Could anyone (say) know the colors and feel of things if no one had perceptual knowledge? If we assume the possibility of an omnipotent and omniscient God, we might have to grant that God could know this sort of thing by virtue of (fully) knowing God's creation of things with these colors and textures. Still, wouldn't even God have to know what these properties are like in order to create the things in question with full knowledge of the nature of the things thus created? Suppose so. That knowledge is arguably of a phenomenal kind; if it is, the point would only show that consciousness is a unique source. Perhaps it is. If reason and consciousness are not only basic, but also the only unique sources, one can understand why both figure so crucially in the epistemology of Descartes or indeed any philosopher for whom what is accessible to conscious experience and to thought is epistemically fundamental in the far‐reaching way that is implied by the combination of basicality and uniqueness.

II. Testimony as an Essential Source

The four standard basic sources do not include testimony. At least since Thomas Reid, 13 however, there has been controversy over whether testimony belongs with these other sources or is nonbasic. There is no question of the importance of testimony. The issue is whether gaining knowledge or justification from it depends on the operation of another source.

It might seem that since to know that p on the basis of your testimony, I must perceptually know that you have attested to p , testimony‐based knowledge cannot be basic. I suggest that this admittedly natural assumption is a mistake: I do not even have to believe that you have attested to p , though to be sure I must be disposed to believe something to this effect and may not dis believe it. 14 But quite apart from whether I did have to believe this, perception would have to operate for me to receive your testimony. Granted, your attesting to p could cause a machine to produce the belief that p (perhaps even knowledge that p ) directly in me; but this would at best be a case of knowledge due to , not on the basis of , testimony. A mere cause of my knowing something is not a source of knowledge. A sudden curiosity can cause me to look up a phone number and thereby come to know it; the curiosity is not the source of my knowledge. If, by contrast, your attestation causes me to receive your testimony directly in my mind, like a message appearing in my interior monologue, I could acquire knowledge on the basis of the testimony; but this would show only that perception can be telepathic—or perhaps that there is a basic nonperceptual source of knowledge of other minds. There would still be no need for me to have my knowledge that p based (partly) on knowledge that you attested to it. 15

With justification, it seems equally clear that apart from perceptual justification for believing something to the effect that you attested to p , I cannot acquire justification for believing it on the basis of your testimony. If, however, I am right in thinking that one need not believe, as opposed to having grounds adequate for knowing or justifiedly believing, that the attester gave testimony that p , then something important about testimony emerges: it is a source of basic knowledge , that is, knowledge not grounded in other knowledge (or in justified belief of some other proposition). My knowledge that p need not be inferred from any premises nor based on a belief that p was attested to. The point that testimony is a source of basic knowledge distinguishes it from other nonbasic sources of knowledge, such as inference. (Even in the case of knowledge by virtue of an inferential operation of reason, the conclusion is known or believed on the basis of a premise, hence is not basic knowledge or basically justified.) The point also helps to explain why it is natural to consider testimony a basic source of knowledge; for it is typical of such sources that they yield noninferential knowledge.

There are four further points that distinguish testimony from the basic sources. First, one cannot test the reliability of a basic source or confirm a deliverance of it without relying on that very source. With perception one must, for instance, look again; with memory one must try harder to recall or must consult other memories—and one must remember the original belief being examined, lest the target of confirmation be lost from view. With testimony, one can check reliability using any of the basic sources.

The second point has already been suggested in connection with memory. Memory is central for our knowledge at any given moment in a way testimony is not. Even if knowledge could not be acquired without the benefit of testimony given to one at least to the extent one needs in order to learn a language (a process in which what parents or others attest to is crucial to acquiring a vocabulary), once we climb that linguistic ladder we can discard it and, given normal memory, retain what we know. With the other basic sources, reason in some minimal form is indispensable to possessing any knowledge (at least in protecting us from pervasive inconsistency), and to inferential development of knowledge, which depends on deductive and inductive logic. Consciousness and perception are essential for the development of new knowledge in their domains. There is, however, no domain (except possibly that of other minds) for which continued testimony is in principle needed for increase of knowledge. Similar (but not entirely parallel) points hold for justification.

The third point is perhaps even subtler. There is a sense in which testimonially based belief passes through the will—or at least through agency: the attester must select what to attest to and in the process can also lie, in which case the belief does not constitute knowledge (and the justification the recipient may get is, in a certain way we need not pursue here, objectively defective). For the basic sources, there is no analogue of such voluntary representation of information. Indeed, testimonially based beliefs normally pass through agency twice over, since one can normally withhold belief from the proposition in a way one cannot when it is fully supported directly by experience or reason (to be sure, even in those cases there is such a thing as double support, as where someone attests to a plainly self‐evident proposition one had not thought of but intuitively sees to be true on hearing it asserted).

Granted, it is a contingent matter when a person can withhold belief: some of us may be able to learn to withhold even beliefs that those speaking to us are people as opposed to robots. 16 But the normal level of control here is different from that applicable to testimony, where appraisal of credibility may always involve both the kinds of doubts we may have about basic sources and any we may have about the attester's response to them. To be sure, we sometimes speak of the “testimony of the senses.” But this is metaphor, at least insofar as it suggests that the senses derive knowledge from another source, as attesters must eventually do, since knowledge that p cannot derive from an infinite or circular chain in which no person giving testimony that p knows it even in part on a nontestimonial basis. 17

A fourth point of contrast between testimony and the standard basic sources has already been suggested. It concerns the need for grounds for the semantic interpretation of what is said on the basis of which it is taken to be that p . This is not a justificatory or epistemic burden intrinsic to the standard basic sources. Granted, much a priori knowledge and justification is acquired through consideration of linguistic expression of propositions. Still, on the most plausible account of the basis of such knowledge and justification, its object is nonlinguistic; the ground is apparently a kind of understanding of the proposition in question or, perhaps more directly, of the concepts figuring in or essential to it.

It must also be granted that a lack of semantic understanding will normally restrict the range propositions that are even candidates for one's a priori knowledge or justification, since one's comprehension of language will (for most of us, at least) limit the range of propositions we can get before our minds. Moreover, semantic misunderstanding —which is of course possible even in people of wide and deep semantic comprehension—may give us the wrong proposition or range of propositions. Nonetheless, neither of these defects need affect how good our grounds are once the right object is before us. To be sure, defeaters of knowledge or justification can come from semantically interpreted items and can afflict beliefs deriving from any of the standard sources; but none of those sources seems dependent on semantic grounds in the way that testimony is.

These contrasts between testimony and the basic sources are not meant to impugn the importance of testimony. In addition to being a source of basic knowledge, testimony is, like memory, an essential source of our overall knowledge. Our overall knowledge depends on it in far‐reaching ways, though not perhaps as much as, and certainly not in quite the same ways as, it depends on memory. The most important thing memory and testimony have in common may be that they transmit , rather than generate , knowledge (the case with justification is different, since memory is a basic source of that).

As to how testimony differs from both perception and memory, there is more to say than can be said here. It is not a question of reliability; it is only a contingent matter just how reliable each is. It is not even the semantic character of the deliverances of the source; one can see a sentence (as such), as one can hear testimony—indeed, the uttered sentence may constitute someone's testimony. A crucial point made earlier bears repeating: the acquisition of knowledge or even justified belief on the basis of testimony depends on the agency of another person. Normally, the attester must not lie, or seek to deceive, in attesting to p if we are to come to know that p on the basis of the testimony. By contrast, our responses to the deliverances of the basic sources is not normally mediated by anyone else's action. Testimony may be unreliable—or otherwise unworthy of one's acceptance—both because of natural connections between the state(s) of affairs the testimony concerns and because of the person's exercise of agency. This is not normally so for the testimony of the senses or of memory or of reason. The point is not that the exercise of agency cannot be a “natural” phenomenon—though philosophers who think that freedom is incompatible with determinism are likely to insist that it cannot—but that the concepts of knowledge and justification apparently presuppose that if it is a natural phenomenon, it is nonetheless special. 18

III. Sources and Grounds

To specify a source of knowledge is to indicate where it comes from, but it is also to do something more. I have already noted that to specify a mere cause of someone's knowing something is not to specify a source of the knowledge. In part this is because a source of something need not be a ground of it. As I am understanding sources of knowledge , and as they are generally conceived in philosophical literature, they are not just where knowledge comes from; they also provide the knower with grounds of knowledge. Grounds are what it is in virtue of which (roughly, on the basis of which) one knows or justifiedly believes. If you know that my knowledge that it is raining is perceptual, as opposed, say, to testimonial, you know not only that it comes from my perceiving something, but also that I have a perceptual ground, say a visual or auditory experience, for believing the proposition.

As this example makes clear, sources indicate the kinds of grounds to expect a person to have when the person has knowledge through that source. But the source is not itself the ground. We may of course call perception a ground of knowledge so long as we understand that so speaking of a ground does not specify just what it is. What about the converse question: Does specifying a ground of knowledge that p indicate the source of the knowledge? If the ground is experiential as opposed to propositional, then ordinarily it does. But we can speak of knowledge based on an impression that (say) a car is moving, while leaving open whether it is based on visual sensations or on inference from what one can see. It also seems possible for there to be grounds of knowledge that we cannot refer to any familiar source, as might be the case with certain religious experiences. Is this a kind of perception, or might there be a new nonperceptual source? There is probably no way to answer this in the abstract.

Suppose, however, one thought that a person could have knowledge simply implanted by virtue of a true belief 's being reliably caused, where the person's brain is directly affected by a calculator and one comes to believe a truth of arithmetic that would ordinarily require calculation. If we think knowledge is possible for the idiot savant (the “lightning calculator”), we may count this as knowledge. If the person has no sense of any basis of the belief, such as a sense of “things adding up that way,” it seems more accurate to speak of a basis for knowledge rather than a ground and of a cause rather than a source. But in a generic sense there is a source; and a basis is a ground in the widest sense of that term.

This is another of the many cases in which epistemologists may diverge, depending on whether they are internalists or externalists. For an internalist, if there is nothing that is in consciousness or accessible to it by reflective or introspective efforts and that can serve as justification or some kind of evidence for p , thenwe have at best a cause, not a ground, of knowledge. For an externalist, if the process by which the belief is produced is reliable and p is indeed true, that process itself may be said to be a ground of knowledge—or at least to ground it. Perhaps the externalist would agree with the internalist, however, that there is an important sense in which it is not the subject's ground . In any event, it seems fair to say that the dominant notions of source and ground in the philosophical literature are those in which sources supply accessible grounds (grounds accessible, by reflection or introspection, to the person for whom they are grounds). The four standard sources of knowledge and justification, moreover, are commonly taken to be the only basic ones.

IV. The Epistemic Autonomy of the Basic Sources

A basic source of knowledge does not have a positive epistemic dependency on some other source; but it does not in general yield indefeasibly justified beliefs (if it ever does), and it can produce true beliefs whose status as would‐be knowledge is undermined by some defeating factor. Each source, then, is to a significant degree subject to defeasibility. Defeat can come from a different source; hence we cannot adequately account for knowledge or justification apart from an understanding of the interconnections among the basic sources.

To what extent, then, is each basic source autonomous? To answer this we need to distinguish different kinds of autonomy. One way to focus the issue and to see the role of defeasibility in understanding the basic sources is to ask whether all the epistemic defeaters of beliefs that are well grounded in the standard basic sources (i.e., all the elements that defeat their justification or prevent their constituting knowledge) derive their defeating power from those same sources. The more general question here is whether, collectively, the standard basic sources are epistemically and justificationally self‐sufficient , roughly self‐sustaining in providing for all the knowledge‐conferring and justification‐conferring grounds of belief, and self‐correcting, in potentially accounting for all the grounds of defeat of (would‐be) knowledge and of justification. A quite similar question is whether, taken together, they are necessarily such that if a true belief enjoys adequate support from at least one of them, hence is properly evidenced, and that support is not defeated by at least one other, then the belief constitutes knowledge (or is justified on balance).

This self‐sufficiency thesis has some plausibility, particularly for justification. To show whether or not it holds would take far more space than I have, but we can go some distance toward an answer by exploring the two main aspects of the question whether the standard basic sources are autonomous. First, does each source yield the knowledge or justification it does independently of confirmation of the belief in question from any other source? Call this the question of individual autonomy . Second, if not, then does only the entire set of basic sources meet this independence condition? This would be collective autonomy , a freedom from the need for confirmation by any fifth source.

There is also a kind of negative autonomy : invulnerability to defeat by beliefs from another source. Such defeat may occur where “seeing is believing.” For instance, suppose I see a stone wall. My visual experience may yield a belief that there is one at the edge of the field, and that belief may constitute knowledge and retain justification despite a memory belief that, as of a few minutes ago, there was only a line of trees in that place. The justification that my memory belief had is thus defeated. As this example can also indicate, invulnerability to defeat from one source may be combined with vulnerability to another. If seeing a wall can yield knowledge or justification that overrides, and presumably cannot be overridden by, any provided by a memory belief of the kind in question, justification of a visual belief may be overridden by that of a tactual one. If, on a walk in the hot summer, I am justified by vision in believing that there is a water fountain before me, yet I cannot feel anything as I sweep my hands where its cool surface should be resisting them, I will neither know, nor any longer be justified in believing, that there is one there and am likely to conclude I am hallucinating. 19 Here, at least, with respect to both justification and knowledge, touch apparently takes priority over sight.

Positively, there apparently is a measure of individual autonomy. Each source can by itself yield some justification (as well as knowledge). If, for instance, I have a perceptual impression of a piano being played, I am prima facie justified in believing that one is being played. By contrast, if I have a sufficiently vivid and steadfast memory impression of a grassy meadow where I now see a stone wall, I may have some small degree of justification for believing the spot was covered with grass (and the wall has appeared quickly), even if the justification of my visual belief that there is a stone wall before me cannot be overridden by that of the memory belief alone. Certainly in the normal case, justification—of some degree—from one of the four standard sources does not wait upon corroboration from other sources. The same holds for knowledge.

To be sure, one cannot be justified in believing (or know) that a lot was vacant unless one has the required concepts, such as that of vacancy; and it may be that one does not acquire concepts adequate to make justified belief possible until one has a complex group of interrelated concepts. This may imply that one gets no justification at all in isolation from justification for many related propositions. That possibility is, however, quite compatible with some grounds of one's justification being single experiences. Epistemic autonomy is consistent with conceptual dependence. We cannot believe, and hence cannot know, a proposition essentially involving concepts we do not have. But a belief might have an isolated ground without in the least being isolated conceptually or in content from other beliefs.

Regarding negative individual autonomy on the part of a source—that is, its providing justification or knowledge that is overridable only by counterevidence from the same source—plainly the four standard sources do not have it. To take a different example, the justification of a memorially justified belief that there is a wall in the field can be overridden by a perception of smooth ground there. The same perception can prevent the belief 's constituting knowledge even if it is true. It may seem that reason—our rational capacity—is privileged as a source of justification. Strong rationalists might take it to possess negative individual autonomy. But surely there are some propositions, such as some in logic or mathematics, that I might justifiedly believe on the basis of reflection but, in part on the basis of sufficiently plausible testimony, can cease to be justified in believing or cease to know. Here the authority of that testimony would depend partly on perceptual and memorial factors crucial for my justifiedly accepting the credibility of the person who is its source. Thus, the overriding power of that authority does not derive from reason alone. 20

The case for collective negative autonomy is more plausible: there is some reason to think that where a belief constitutes knowledge or is justified in virtue of support from all four sources working together, its epistemic grounding (its grounding qua knowledge) and its justification are defeasible only through considerations arising from at least one of those very sources. If we assume that such defeat can come only from what confers or at least admits of justification, and if we add the highly controversial assumption that all epistemic grounding and justification of belief derive wholly from the four standard sources, we may conclude that those sources are epistemically and justificationally self‐sufficient. I make neither assumption, but I would suggest that in fact these sources may well be self‐sufficient. For there may in fact be no other basic sources (as opposed to causes) of knowledge or justification or of defeat. 21

There are at least two reasons for the caution just expressed. One concerns collective negative autonomy. The other concerns the self‐sufficiency thesis, in particular the idea that the standard basic sources are self‐corrective in providing (in principle) for all the kinds of correction needed to rectify erroneous beliefs. Let us take these points in turn.

First, it is widely recognized that sources of unreliability in our belief‐formation processes can prevent our beliefs from constituting knowledge even if we have no way, through the standard basic sources, of detecting the error. This is a lesson of the Cartesian demon scenario, in which our belief‐forming experiences, and even our efforts to check on the truth of our beliefs, are manipulated so that we cannot detect certain false beliefs. But, in principle, inanimate factors could conspire to produce the same unfortunate results. It would be a mistake, then, to say that the basic sources are necessarily self‐correcting.

Second, there is reason to think that the concept of knowledge, as opposed to that of justification, is external in roughly this sense: knowledge is possible without the knower's having internally accessible grounds for the belief constituting it. 22 Thus, suppose that, through the operation of a special mechanism in one's brain, one could know what a person very near one was thinking. Such a mechanism might deliver the beliefs constituting the knowledge whenever one concentrates attention on the person in question in a certain way but might yield no sense of any grounds for them; nor would there have to be any access to such grounds. Granted, one might gain inductive evidence of one's success, but if such knowledge is possible at all, one could presumably have it without dependence on inductive evidence of that success. There is much controversy over whether such externally grounded knowledge is possible; but, if it is, then the standard basic sources are not necessarily collectively self‐sufficient regarding knowledge even if they are for justification. There can be other sources of knowledge.

For justification as opposed to knowledge, however, there is reason to think that the four standard sources are indeed individually autonomous and, collectively, both self‐sufficient and self‐corrective. Each can provide grounds that can by themselves confer justification (as well as knowledge where the belief in question is true), though defeat by counterevidence can arise from the same or a different source and hence each lacks autonomy in the negative sense; and the entire set of sources seems, as regards justification, to be autonomous: self‐sufficient in accounting for justification (as well as for normally grounded knowledge) and, independently of any other sources, capable of accounting for defeaters of justification and, in part in that way, for correction of our beliefs. In addition, it is arguable that, at least in the case of reason and perception, there is also uniqueness, in the sense that there are kinds of knowledge and justification not possible apart from dependence on these sources. None of these properties holds for testimony, though it is like the basic sources in being both a source of direct knowledge and also epistemically essential in the ways I have described.

It has been plausibly argued, however, that one source, and perhaps the basic source, of justification is coherence among one's beliefs. Isn't my belief that the car was moving perhaps justified by its coherence with the beliefs that its orientation to the adjacent building seemed to be changing, that I recall tire sounds, and that cars are built to move? And isn't the justification of my belief that the ground where the wall stands was smooth later undermined mainly by its in coherence with the belief that I now see one there (one that looks quite old)? Let us explore the role of coherence in justification.

V. Coherence

Unfortunately, there is no account of coherence which we may simply presuppose. The notion is elusive, and there are highly varying accounts. 23 But this much is clear: we cannot assess the role of coherence in justification unless we distinguish the thesis that coherence is a basic source of justification from the thesis that in coherence can defeat justification. The power to defeat is destructive; the power to provide grounds is constructive. To see that the destructive power of incoherence does not imply that coherence has any basic constructive power, we should first note that incoherence is not the contradictory of coherence, its mere absence. It is something with a definite negative character: two beliefs that are logically and semantically irrelevant to each other, such as my beliefs that the sun is shining and that I am thinking about sources of knowledge, are neither mutually coherent nor mutually incoherent. The paradigm of incoherence is blatant logical inconsistency; positive coherence is widely taken to be far more than mutual consistency, yet far less than mutual entailment.

Clearly, that incoherence can defeat justification does not imply that coherence can create it. If it does create it (which is far from obvious), seeing this point is complicated because wherever coherence is plausibly invoked as a source of justification, there one or more of the four standard sources apparently operates in a way that provides for an explanation according to which both the coherence and the justification arise from the same elements responsible for well‐groundedness. 24 This is best seen through cases.

Consider my belief that a leaf blower is running, grounded in hearing the usual sharp blaring sounds. This appears to be justified by the relevant auditory impressions, together with background information about what the corresponding sounds indicate. If, however, I acquired a justified belief that someone is imitatively creating the blare, my justification for believing that a leaf blower is running would be undermined by the incoherence in my belief system. Does the defeating power of incoherence imply that my original justification requires coherence among my beliefs, including the belief that no one is doing that? Does one even have that belief in such a case? It would surely not be normal to have it when there is no occasion to suspect such a thing. But suppose the belief were required. Notice how many beliefs one would need in order to achieve coherence that is of sufficient magnitude to be even a plausible candidate to generate the justification in question, for example that my hearing is normal, that there is no other machine nearby that makes the same sounds, and so on. It is not quite clear how far this must go. Do we even form that many beliefs in the normal cases in which we acquire justified beliefs of the ordinary kind in question? To think so is to fall victim to a kind of intellectualism about the mind that has afflicted coherentist theories and opposing accounts of justification alike.

A further analogy may help to show how incoherence can be a defeater of justification without its absence, or beliefs that it is absent, or justification for believing something to this effect, being a source of justification. One's job may be the source of one's income, yet a severe depression might eliminate the job. It does not follow that the absence of a depression is a source of one's income. Surely it is not. Even positive economic conditions are not a source, though one's source depends on them. The idea of (positive) dependence is central in understanding that of a source. It must be granted that there is a negative sense in which one's job does depend on the absence of a depression; but that dependence—a kind of vulnerability—is too negative a condition to count as a source (much less a ground) of income. For one thing, it provides no explanation of why one has the income. Similarly, we might say that one's justification negatively depends on the absence of defeaters and positively depends on one's sources. But negative dependence on incoherence does not imply positive dependence on anything in particular, including coherence, as a source, any more than an income's negative dependence on the absence of a depression implies any particular source of that income.

To be sure, nothing can serve as a source of anything without the existence of indefinitely many enabling conditions . Some of these are conceptual. One may, for instance, be unable to believe a proposition even when evidence for it is before one; if a child has no concept of an insurance adjuster, then seeing one examining a damaged car and talk to its owner about deductibles will not function as a source of justification for the proposition that this is an insurance adjuster. Other enabling conditions are psychological, concerning our capacities or dispositions relevant to forming beliefs. If my sensory receptors are malfunctioning, or if I do not respond to their deliverances by forming beliefs in the normal way, then I may fail to be justified in certain perceptual beliefs.

Specifying a source provides both a genetic explanation of where a thing comes from and, through supplying a ground, a contemporaneous explanation of why it is as it is; enabling conditions, by contrast, provide neither. Taken together, they explain its possibility, but not its genesis or its character. It is neither correct nor theoretically illuminating to construe the absence of the enabling conditions as part of the source or as a ground. They are indispensable, but their role should be understood in terms of the theory of defeasibility rather than the theory of sources or of positive grounds.

The importance of incoherence as a defeater of justification, then, is not a good reason to take coherence to be a source of justification. This by no means implies that justification has no relation to coherence. Indeed, at least normally, justified beliefs will cohere, in one or another intuitive sense, with other beliefs one has, typically other justified beliefs. Certainly, wherever there is justification for believing something, there at least tends to be justification for believing a number of related propositions and presumably for believing a coherent set of them. This is easily seen by reflecting on the point that a single perceptual experience provides information sufficient to justify many beliefs: that someone is blowing leaves, that there is a lawn before me, that these blaring motors should be muted, and far more.

The conception of sources of knowledge and justification that I have sketched provides a way to explain why coherence apparently accompanies justified beliefs—actual and hypothetical—namely, that both are ultimately grounded in the same basic sources. In sufficiently rich forms, coherence may, for all I have said, commonly be a mark of justification: an indication of its presence. The coherence conception of knowledge and justification, however, does not well explain why justification of beliefs is apparently dependent on the standard sources. Indeed, as an internal relation among beliefs, coherence may be at least as easily imagined in artificial situations where the coherence of beliefs is unconstrained by our natural tendencies. In principle, wishful thinking could yield as coherent a network of beliefs as the most studious appraisal of evidence. 25

There is one kind of coherence that is entirely consistent with the well‐groundedness conception of justification that goes with taking it to derive from basic sources in the ways I have suggested. To see this, note first that one cannot believe a proposition without having the concepts that figure essentially in it. Whereof one cannot understand, thereof one cannot believe. Moreover, concepts come, and work, in families. This point is the core of a coherence theory of conceptual function: of the acquisition of concepts and their operation, most notably in discourse, judgment, and inference. That theory—call it conceptual coherentism , for short—is both plausible and readily combined with the kind of view I am developing. For instance, I am not justified in believing that there is a piano before me unless I have a concept of a piano. I cannot have that unless I have many other concepts, such as the concept of an instrument, of a keyboard, of playing, of sound, of music—no one highly specific concept need be necessary, and various alternative sets will do. In part, to have a concept (of something perceptible) is (at least for remotely normal persons) to be disposed to form beliefs under appropriate sensory stimulations, say to believe a specimen of the thing to be present when one can see it and is asked if there is such a thing nearby; thus, again it is to be expected that from a single perceptual experience, many connected propositions will be justified for the perceiver.

The coherence theory of conceptual function belongs more to semantics and philosophy of mind than to epistemology. But it has profound epistemological implications. That concepts are acquired in mutual relationships may imply that justification does not arise atomistically, in one isolated belief (or desire or intention) at a time. This does not imply, however, that, once a person acquires the conceptual capacity needed to achieve justification, justification cannot derive from one source at a time. This theory of conceptual acquisition and competence is also quite consistent with the view that, far from deriving from coherence, justification, by virtue of the way it is grounded in its sources, brings coherence with it.

VI. Conclusion

We have seen reason to consider perception, memory, consciousness, and reason to be basic sources of justification and, except in the case of memory, of knowledge. All can yield beliefs that are both noninferential in not being based on other beliefs and noninferentially justified in not deriving their justification from being based on any other beliefs. Testimony can also yield noninferential beliefs and even what might be called basic knowledge, but it is not a basic source or knowledge or justification. Like inference, it yields knowledge and justification only given the positive cooperation of at least one of the basic sources, but because it (commonly) yields noninferential beliefs, it is closer than inference to constituting a basic source.

The basic sources yield not only knowledge and justified belief, but also coherence. For instance, it is common for a single observation to produce a goodly number of cohering beliefs. The operation of reason—our rational capacity—tends to employ an interconnected group of concepts, such as those involving perceptible objects, psychological concepts, and logical relations, which dispose us to discover certain apparently a priori truths and to reason with and from them in ways that produce an integrated view; and memory preserves not only individual beliefs, but also our sense of some of their interconnections.

The operation of basic sources allows for defeasibility even when it yields amply justified beliefs or knowledge. Among the defeaters that can undermine would‐be justification or would‐be knowledge is incoherence. But it is essential to see that the pervasive possibility of defeat does not entail that each basic source has a positive dependence on any of the others, in the sense that in order to yield knowledge or justification, one source must rely on the operation of another one, or that any basic source positively depends on coherence.

At several points, I have indicated something about perception that may not apply to the other basic sources. Within very wide limits, the notion of perception is open‐ended. There is no fixed a priori list of perceptual modalities. In a way the notion is schematic: definite by virtue of paradigms like sight and touch that anchor it, yet capable of being filled out by changes in our relation to the world.

Might the same be said of the notion of a basic source of knowledge or of justification? Perhaps it might. The distinction between a schematic concept being filled out over time and a change of concepts by replacement is, to be sure, not sharp. I certainly want to make room for the possibility that there are or can be basic sources of knowledge or justification not considered here. Whether we call them new basic sources or instead should say that our concepts of knowledge or justification have changed would depend in large part on how they are related to the clearly basic sources that are now essential for understanding the notions of knowledge and justification. My concern has been to clarify those in relation to their sources, especially their basic sources but also testimony and inference, which are essential though not basic sources. How those two sources extend knowledge and justification gained through the basic ones is a large problem that cannot be even be approached here. 26

For each source of knowledge or justification, I have left room for cooperation between sources: two or more basic sources can together produce knowledge or justification, as can two or more nonbasic sources. Two or more sources from the different categories can also cooperate, as where testimony, a nonbasic source of justification, supports memory, which is a basic source of it, or where reason, by producing an inference to a proposition confirmed by memory, supports that faculty. The possibility of cooperation is matched by that of conflict. Skeptics find the latter possibility highly damaging to common‐sense views of the extent of our knowledge and justification. If I have been right, it may well be that the basic sources are collectively autonomous in a way that permits adjudication of this matter. I should like to think this is so; but even if it is, on some aspects of the question the jury is still out. 27

For detailed discussion of the distinction between positive and negative epistemic dependence, see my Epistemology (London: Routledge, 1998 ), esp. chap. 7.

If “blind sight” is a case of perception, this may not be so (though it is arguable that the subject simply does not believe there are visual sensations or other experiential elements corresponding to perception).

The apparent noncausal character of abstract entities is a main reason that knowledge of them—indeed their very existence—is often considered problematic. For one kind of challenge to the causal inertness claim see Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993 ).

For introspection and consciousness, as for external perception, one can devise a plausible adverbial view, as described in chap. 1 of Epistemology .

See Fred I. Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981 ), and William Alston, Perceiving God (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), for indications of how broad the notion of perception is.

The need for ‘if’ here has been suggested already: a duplicate of me would, at the moment of creation, know dispositionally a great deal I now know from memory (not all of it, of course, because some depends on my actual history and it would have no history yet); but it is unclear how this depends on memory. Perhaps we should say that it does not depend on remembering —hence does not require the operation of memory—but does depend on memorial capacity , since it would not be true of me that if I needed to bring a certain item of knowledge to mind I could, unless I had sufficient memorial capacity to retain it from the moment I needed it (e.g., a phone number) to the “next” moment, at which I bring it to mind.

Granted, I could memorially believe p but not know it (having too little evidence, say) and then be told by you that p . But if I now know it, this is on the basis of your testimony; I don't know it from memory until I retain the knowledge and not just the belief. Believing from memory can instantaneously become knowing, but does not instantaneously become knowledge from memory.

For a detailed discussion of the epistemology of memory, with many references to relevant literature, see my “Memorial Justification,” Philosophical Topics 23 (1995): 31–45.

See, for example, Hume's extraordinary affirmation of privileged access in the Treatise , cited and discussed in my Epistemology , chap. 3.

The relevant kind of understanding and the notions of a priori knowledge and justification in general are discussed in detail in chap. 4 of Epistemology and in my “Self‐Evidence,” in Philosophical Perspectives 13 ( 1999 ): 205–228.

Thus, for God or any being with infinite memorial capacity, no use of reason essentially depends on the exercise of memory. I might add even if the points made here about inference and memory are mistaken, the overall point that reason may ground justification for p without yielding knowledge of it can be illustrated by many other cases, presumably including the proposition that some classes are members of themselves (since this embodies a type‐error).

This point must be qualified if W. V. Quine is right in denying that there is a viable distinction between the empirical and the a priori—at least one would have to speak in terms of, say, differences in degree. For extensive criticism of Quine, see BonJour, “Against Naturalized Epistemology,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994): 283–300, and for the notion of a priori justification see also my “Self‐Evidence.”

See Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1969). For a defense of a Reidian view see C. A. J. Coady, Testimony (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992 ). For a contrasting account of testimony more sympathetic to a Humean perspective see Elizabeth Fricker's chapter on testimony in Handbook of Epistemology , ed. Ilkka Niiniluoto and Matti Sintonen (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002).

For a developed distinction between these and a case for positing fewer beliefs than most philosophers apparently do, see my “Dispositional Beliefs and Dispositions to Believe,” Nous 28 (1994): 419–434.

This point may be more controversial for internalist than for externalist views, since an externalist can hold that my belief can constitute knowledge so long as it is reliably produced, even if I do not have accessible grounds for p , as I would if I had good inferential grounds for it. I cannot discuss the contrast between internalism and externalism in this paper. For discussion see, for example William P. Alston, Epistemic Justification (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989 ), Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989 ), and my Epistemology , chap. 8.

I discuss the issue of voluntary control of belief and cite much relevant literature in “Doxastic Voluntarism and the Ethics of Belief,” Facta Philosophica 1, no. 1 (1999): 87–109.

This point is explained and defended in my “The Place of Testimony in the Fabric of Knowledge and Justification,” American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1997): 404–422.

This point may support my view, defended in “The Place of Testimony,” that to acquire justification for p from testimony, one needs some degree of justification for taking the attester to be credible. (I do not think one needs this to acquire prima facie justification from one of the standard basic sources.)

This is not to imply that just any tactual belief is better justified than any conflicting visual one. Matters are far more complicated, but need not be pursued in detail here.

This is not to deny that there may be justified beliefs of logical truths so luminous that the justification of these beliefs cannot be overridden. The point is that doxastic justification grounded in reflection can be overridden by factors that are at least not entirely a priori. That can be so even when the beliefs in question are true. For further discussion of this issue see Laurence BonJour, In Defense of Pure Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), and my “Self‐Evidence,” cited in note 10 .

Another possibility is that there are other basic sources which are comparatively weak, so that although they may add to the justification available through the standard sources, they are not sufficient to yield belief that is justified on balance (roughly, justified to a degree ordinarily sufficient to render a true belief knowledge). On the other hand, if they can add to justification from the standard sources, then they could render a belief that would not ordinarily defeat the justification of another belief able to do so. This would limit the self‐sufficiency of the basic sources. We should surely be cautious about affirming even the de facto self‐sufficiency of the sources, and I leave it open.

A brief treatment of externalism is provided in my Epistemology ; for a more extensive treatment see Ernest Sosa, Knowledge in Focus, Skepticism Resolved (forthcoming from Princeton University Press), and chapter 8 in the present volume.

For two major accounts see Keith Lehrer, Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974 ), and Laurence BonJour, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985 ); and for much discussion see John Bender, ed., The Current State of the Coherence Theory (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989). It should be noted that in “The Dialectic of Foundationalism and Coherentism,” in John Greco and Ernest Sosa, eds., The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999 ), BonJour has since abandoned coherentism.

This is suggested and to some degree argued in my Belief, Justification, and Knowledge (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1988) and The Architecture of Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

If it is taken to be an internal relation among beliefs, their content does not matter, nor does their fit with experience. This sort of thing has been widely noted; see Moser, Knowledge and Evidence , and John Bender, The Current State of the Coherence Theory (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989 ), for some relevant points and many references.

An approach to understanding the inferential extension of justification and knowledge is developed in chap. 6 of Epistemology . Testimonial extension of justification and knowledge is approached in my “The Place of Testimony.”

For helpful comments on an earlier version of this article (which derives, in part, from chap. 1 of my Architecture of Reason and from my paper on testimony, cited above), I heartily thank Paul Moser and Richard Swinburne.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Call us Topics in English
• Privacy Policy
• terms of use

Topics in English Topics in english to learn and fluent pronunciation and writing and facilitate conversation between you and others, whether in school, work or daily life

Value of reading essay 8 models

Value of reading essay with a lot of information on the importance of reading for the individual and society and how it opens the horizons in front of the minds to think and learn what they have not learned before. Reading is the food of the soul and the key to knowledge and culture. All of that you’ll find here in Value of reading essay.

Value of reading essay

Reading is the first source of knowledge of different cultures and civilizations and the benefit of the experience of previous nations. All of that you’ll find here in Value of reading essay.

Reading is the first and best source of knowledge, the strongest weapon any individual or society can ever have. Reading enables man to acquire the experience of others, which he can not acquire even if he has lived thousands of years .

Abbas Mahmoud al-Akkad said: “Reading adds to the age of man other ages”.  Reading allows you to know the knowledge and experiences that have passed on humans since the beginning of writing and blogging and the experiences they gained from them.

 The book is the only friend who can not betray you at all or lie to you, so there is no better friend to build your experience on his advice.

Conscious reading benefit the individual and society in general. If we wanted to see how the individual benefits from reading,  We all agree on the knowledge gained by the reading of the individual and the various sciences that he learns through reading, which we do not know when will benefit us.

Even if we do not use this information directly from reading, it helps us connect and understand the universe better and wider.

We must also know that knowledge is the only thing that a person can not lose, It is possible for a person to be exposed to a situation in which he loses his job, his money or even his family and body, But knowledge is the only thing that can not leave a person.

If we were to give an example it will be the physicist Steve Hawking, we would admit that anyone exposed to what happened to him would lose hope in life and be at the bottom of society.

But what made Steve Hawking one of the greatest personalities in the whole world was his knowledge he first acquired by reading.

Value of reading

The value of reading varies from person to person. The scientific researcher can make reading more valuable and important and add new research and discoveries to it.

The student can make reading valuable by memorizing and understanding its content and reusing it in society. Also, the ordinary person can enlighten his mind and improve his morals and qualities.

Therefore, the value of reading may be different according to the person, but it is in any case very important, and helps and enlightens the mind and improves humanity, whether in the aspects of progress and learning, or from the educational aspect.

Therefore, reading cannot end or become extinct, like many things, because it is a cornerstone of our development and all nations know that and know the importance of reading.

Value of reading essay 200 words

The value of reading is great and invaluable. Reading can change an individual’s life and provide him with many opportunities in life, whether to succeed in his work by expanding his horizons and informing him of more details and information, or by acquiring new, modern and advanced skills and methods that someone else has access to.

It can be said that all ancient civilizations followed the method of writing in transmitting civilization and its history to future generations.

And by reading these civilizations, we were able to develop and progress in terms of those before us, while preserving the customs and traditions of our peoples, and preserving identity.

Reading continuously can improve the level of thought for the average person, help him to understand the picture more, and increase self-confidence with improvement in speaking and addressing, because it always activates the sentences and terms in your mind, which makes your mind always alert and active.

Also, reading has a great value in increasing the urbanization of peoples and reducing barbarism. As it is said in many proverbs, knowledge is light, and ignorance is darkness.

Where science is described as a light that enlightens the mind, improves morals, and helps man to civilize and act rationally and with greater responsibility towards himself or towards members of his family and society.

Therefore, many believe that reading is invaluable and indispensable until people advance in their civilization and development, and until many peoples and civilizations adhere to their customs and traditions so as not to lose their identity.

The value of reading essay

Reading has a very great value because it nourishes the mind and soul, makes a person more rational and civilized, and makes him more aware, and less dangerous to society, on the contrary, it makes him more integrated and smooth and has a prior vision of many things.

In addition to the value of reading educational, scientific or historical articles, which make him familiar with many skills, tips or recipes.

Which makes it more advanced and has many scientific solutions that others have reached and was able to benefit from by reading the article or a book.

Therefore, continuous reading is considered food for the mind and soul, and a person is not satisfied with it, no matter how old he gets, he will continue to learn, benefit and develop until the last day of his life.

Therefore, I love reading a lot and I like to go back to some articles and research on many things that I have to express my opinion on or that to talk about them and I am ignorant of many aspects of them. This makes me very ready to speak with confidence and give many different models that show the extent of my experience of what I am talking about.

Essay on value of reading

A few years ago, I was suffering from a problem of lack of self-confidence, and I worry a lot when others talk about anything around me, and I find myself preferring to remain silent and not speak so as not to embarrass myself.

But I managed to overcome this problem by reading a lot. I found myself familiar with a lot of information, and I had a good background on many things. I have many sentences and expressions that I can use in conversation.

Reading may have a different value to them, but for me it was a good motivation to gain confidence in myself and integrate with others.

It also helped in increasing my awareness, and I became more familiar with the personalities of others and the extent of their influence on those around them, and how to deal with them.

Besides, I was able to excel in the study due to my access to a lot of historical or geographical information. This helped me a lot in absorbing many lessons, knowing the purpose of them, or knowing their events in advance.

I would very much like to continue reading, especially reading from paper books, not electronic ones. This is because I feel that paper books contain more information and focus, unlike reading from the phone, I am busy talking to friends or busy with many other things, I may be distracted and not pay attention to what I read.

Essay on the value of reading

Reading is one of the things that contributed to the progress of mankind, and made them more humane and advanced. This is because it contains self-discipline, development and education.

The more education is integrated into a society of progress and development and becomes more understanding and rational, and the mind becomes what governs their behavior and character.

The more education is lacking in a society, the mind becomes unused, and the action becomes from the body, which helps in increasing violence and dangerous actions.

Therefore, education and reading are very important at the beginning of the establishment of any society. After that, it plays many roles, including gaining self-confidence due to exposure to many and varied topics, increasing awareness, broad knowledge of many things, such as knowing yourself, or knowing others and how to deal with them, including cultural and entertainment books, and other books.

Whenever the person’s progress in education increased, his social and literary status increased with him. This requires him to study and continue reading, so that he is aware of all the things that surround him.

Value of reading short essay

Many people are ignorant of the value of reading, especially those who live in the 21st century. They do not realize how many nations have risen, advanced and become great, thanks to the foundation of their people on education, and their distance from ignorance.

Which led to the reduction of intolerance and violence, and their people became educated because of reading, and they are good at dealing and integrating into society, and they can progress and give to the state and society.  All because of reading and education, which served as a beacon that helped him on the right path.

In the 21st century, we can see the impact of reading on people from their behavior, and their reactions in many situations.

Always the person who tends to read regularly, starts the conversation rationally and logically. We find a person who is uneducated or who cannot read, tends to physical behavior more than rationality and talking, in addition to his ignorance of many things that surround him, and he does not have the ability to speak fluently.

This is considered one of the benefits of reading, which is providing the person with many important and useful information that makes him very confident in himself, and he has many means that help him to talk or persuade.

Value of reading essay 150 words

Reading is a beacon for every person who wants to reach safety, as it provides a person with many of the things he needs from childhood to old age.

The deeper a person reads, the more he is able to benefit from it and progress and integrate into society more, and the conversation with him becomes more useful than others.

He now owns many theories and matters that have been recorded for his predecessors, which represent a good reference to begin with and lack nothing but applying on the ground at the present time, how much they can be developed according to the time or environment in which he lives.

We can also see the role of reading in different societies and how they were able to benefit from it, develop and transfer industrial and commercial experiences.

And how it was the reason for establishing projects, or learning one of the trades that became a main source of income for many people.

It also helps many groups to develop and learn many new experiences, such as doctors, and other people whose educational life does not end no matter how much they advance in life. It is an important reason for their progress and development.

In this way, we have presented to you the value of reading essay, and you can read more through the following link:

• Importance of reading essay
• English essay

About admin

Related articles.

Value of Time Essay 3 Models

Car accident essay 6 models

Essay on car 10 models

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• MHT CET 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Advanced Cutoff
• JEE Main Cutoff
• JEE Main Advanced Answer Key
• JEE Advanced Result
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• KCET Result
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Answer Key
• TS ICET 2024 Hall Ticket
• CMAT Result 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• NEET Rank Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Result 2024
• NEET Asnwer Key 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top NLUs Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Predictors & Articles

• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• NID DAT Syllabus 2025
• NID DAT 2025
• Design Colleges in India
• Top NIFT Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Interior Design Colleges in India
• Top Graphic Designing Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Interior Design Colleges in Bangalore
• NIFT Result 2024
• NIFT Fees Structure
• NIFT Syllabus 2025
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission 2024
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• LPU NEST 2024
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET DU Cut off 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Admit card 2024
• CUET Result 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Cut Off 2024
• CUET Exam Analysis 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• CUET PG Counselling 2024
• CUET Answer Key 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Importance of Reading Books Essay - 100, 200, 500 Words

One of the nicest pastimes one may engage in is reading. It's enjoyable to read a variety of novels. We learn a lot about individuals from different parts of the world, their cultures, traditions, and much more by reading books. By reading various novels, one can discover so much. They are people's closest friends and offer a wealth of knowledge. We learn about every subject and topic by reading books about it. There are many different kinds of books available on the market, including publications about science and technology, fiction, culture, historical events, and warfare.

100 Words Essay On Importance Of Reading Books

Books have a vital recreational function in addition to being a source of knowledge. The statement that books provide a window into another world is seldom understated. They are effective stress relievers because they allow us to forget about the pressures and worries of daily life. There is a book for everyone, which is an added bonus and makes this the ideal stress reliever. It aids in brain and memory stimulation through improved cognitive performance. Additionally, it keeps the creative energies flowing. Your mind will remain active and healthy as a result. Every time we read a book, we are learning something new.

200 Words Essay On Importance Of Reading Books

Excellent scholars and thinkers expressed their knowledge and understanding of life in the form of books. Many things can be understood and learned by reading. Because of this, reading is advised as a daily brain booster and a way to learn new information. Reading inspires creativity, growth, and original thought. It is a prudent investment in one's personality with countless long-lasting benefits. You have to remember the place, the characters, their backstories, their attitudes, the subplots, and a tonne of other things every time you read a book. As your brain becomes more adept at remembering everything, your memory gets better.

Reading is a fundamental skill that has numerous benefits and impacts almost every aspect of a person's life. It not only improves vocabulary, comprehension and language skills, but also expands one's knowledge, perspective and understanding of the world. Reading can also stimulate creativity and imagination, relieve stress, and provide a source of entertainment and relaxation. Additionally, reading helps to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, making individuals better equipped to solve problems and make informed decisions. In today's digital age, reading is more accessible than ever, and it can be done in a variety of formats, including books, magazines, newspapers, and e-books . The importance of reading cannot be overstated and it is a habit that should be cultivated from a young age.

500 Words Essay on Reading Books

The ability to read allows us to learn new information and gives us access to a wide range of opportunities, ideas, and tales. We can gather a lot of information and apply it correctly to carry out a variety of duties in our lives. Reading regularly broadens our knowledge and improves our intelligence and sense of judgment. Early reading encouragement aids children's understanding of their surroundings.

One of the reading's key benefits is its ability to enhance critical thinking skills. For instance, reading a mystery novel can help you think more effectively. What elements of a story enable one to draw a conclusion? If the novel is based on actual events, you could periodically wonder if the author is correct. Making significant decisions frequently requires the use of critical thinking abilities. Comparing reading to watching television requires distinct types of thought and information processing. As you read more, you become more aware of what you're reading and its significance.

Because we live in a culture where competition dominates every part of life, we need to nurture a child's personality so that they have a lot of self-confidence. Books have a significant role in our educational process . Books are extensive knowledge archives. Publications can be found all around us in a variety of formats, including magazines, novels, self-help, and scholarly books. They were able to develop a genre that perfectly suited everyone's requirements. Whether it was for bedtime reading or study material, everyone has had some sort of connection to books. This wasn't always the case, though.

In the past, books were not as readily available as they are today. The advancement of printing technology has reduced the cost of books and increased accessibility for everyone. Books encourage our imagination and inventiveness while assisting us in visualising the material.

The growth of a person is significantly impacted by reading. Language development is the primary and most significant advantage of reading. It expands our comprehension of words beyond their meaning to include the context of their use, which aids in vocabulary development. The second is the growth of cognitive capacities, particularly in young children. It aids in the development of viewpoints on numerous topics, from the self to society.

Reading allows us to take in information, making it a passive learning method, according to the study. This makes it possible for us to comprehend challenges in society and personal difficulties in a more thorough and holistic way. The advantages that books provide us still holds true even in a world where everything can be found online.

Reading books can uplift you when you're feeling sad or uninspired and even provide you with company while everyone else is busy. One benefit of reading is that it helps to calm the body and mind. You can refuel much more quickly by reading. Reading is the best way to unwind after a long day. Due to the concentration required to read literature or fiction, readers can tune out distractions from their daily lives, fostering inner serenity and enhancing general health.

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

ALLEN Digital Scholarship Admission Test (ADSAT)

Register FREE for ALLEN Digital Scholarship Admission Test (ADSAT)

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Physics formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

PW JEE Coaching

Enrol in PW Vidyapeeth center for JEE coaching

PW NEET Coaching

Enrol in PW Vidyapeeth center for NEET coaching

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Certifications

We Appeared in

The Surprising Benefits of Early Reading

Early reading for pleasure is linked to enhanced thinking, feeling, and acting..

Updated May 9, 2024 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

• Research into children who start reading for pleasure at an early age, shows notable brain enhancement.
• Reading for pleasure between 2 and 9 supports healthy development in a variety of brain regions.
• Reading rather than screen time is connected to better cognitive, mental health, and behavioural outcomes.
• Reading offers children a proven way to reduce anxiety and depression.

In 2023, researchers in the United Kingdom, at the universities of Warwick and Cambridge, and others in China at the University of Fudan, published results of the data they analyzed from over 10,000 teens gathered from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development cohort in the United States.

Their focus was not academic. They were not trying to see who read the earliest and tested the best. They studied children who read for pleasure and how it improved their brain function if they began between two and nine years old, started after that time, or did not read for pleasure at all. The study was cross-sectional. The researchers collected data from many different teens at a single point in time. They were from diverse socio-economic backgrounds in families that had a whole range of educational levels.

The study was longitudinal. They assessed the over 10,000 adolescent participants over a series of years. Furthermore, a “2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis for potential causal interference was also performed.” While the study revealed “moderately significant heritability of early” reading for pleasure “with considerable contribution from environments,” the brain differences were found to be causally connected to those children who started reading for pleasure early in life.

This major dataset showed that children who start reading early, for the sheer pleasure of it, develop brain structure in such a way that they improve their thinking skills, mental health, and conduct. They show signs of reduced stress , as well as reduced tendencies towards aggressive behaviours such as bullying .

Imagine children excited to go to school because their peers are joyfully turning the pages of stories rather than seeking opportunities to target, humiliate, and harm. Imagine for teachers a classroom where their students have healthy brains, facility with thinking and learning, and a capacity to self-regulate both internalizing and externalizing behaviours. In other words, their students aren’t withdrawing, disengaging, feeling anxiety and depression . Their students aren’t aggressively lashing out or breaking rules.

Twelve hours a week of reading for pleasure, started early in life, could potentially transform today’s classrooms into spaces where education comes alive and mental health issues are significantly reduced. It might even save many teachers from burnout .

The more children read early, the less time they are on screens which has been shown to change the way their brains develop. The early readers for pleasure showed distinct improvements in their brain development as documented on brain scans. The impacts were notably positive for children’s verbal learning, memory , speech development, and overall academic performance. The impacts were also notable for improvements in mental health and behaviour.

The Research

The Warwick, Cambridge, and Fudan researchers put their study into the context of an extensive meta-analysis of other studies. What they add to our understanding is the significant connection between early reading for pleasure and enhanced brain health versus the correlation between screen time and “multiple psychopathological problems” ranging from externalizing behaviours like bullying, and internalizing ones like depression and anxiety, and learning challenges like ADHD .

Not only are structures in the brain linked specifically to reading impacted, other brain regions, such as “the middle frontal, temporal pole, circular insula, left superior frontal” and more, were positively associated with cognitive or thinking performance. Just as important, the positive impact on so many brain regions were also associated with reducing “psychopathology scores.” If we want children and teens to succeed at academics and avoid the sometimes lifetime curse of mental illness and mental disorders then encouraging and facilitating early reading for pleasure is one critical intervention. The improved health of these brain regions didn’t just slightly improve cognition and mental health outcomes, they “significantly mediated” them.

To put these research insights more forcefully, specific brain regions impacted by early reading for pleasure, among the many identified, “play critical roles in cognitive function.” This is vitally important to lay a foundation for learning that underpins academic success. At the same time, these findings show “abnormal pathological dysfunctions/defects and alterations in these brain regions are significantly related to multiple psychiatric and mental health disorders.”

There is that powerful word once again “significantly.” It is not used lightly by scientific researchers who are cautious to overstate their findings.To recap, if we prioritize children’s early reading for pleasure and keep them away from screen time as their brain is developing intensely, we not only give them an enhanced foundation to academically achieve, but we may also help protect them from the immense suffering and loss frequently connected to mental health disorders.

Early Reading for Pleasure is Protective

Research shows that children who spend time with care-givers reading in early childhood suffer less from social-emotional problems. Children who are reading for pleasure, rather than interacting with screen content, suffer less depression and aggression . They disengage less. They have less anxiety. They are less likely to develop ADHD. They don’t bully as much or break rules as frequently.

Why? Is one activity morally better than the other? Is reading the ethical choice and screen time a "bad" choice? Not according to this research. Because reading for pleasure enhances many brain regions associated with thinking and emotions and mood and behaviours, it is a prescription for success and mental health.

If children cannot see properly, we are quick to get them glasses. If children cannot hear effectively, we get them hearing aids. When they cannot walk, we get them crutches or a wheelchair. If children are struggling to think clearly, problem-solve, develop social- emotional intelligence , behave in regulated, empathic ways, we need to get them reading for pleasure, the sooner the better.

If children are struggling to avoid acting with cruelty and aggression, if they struggle to be motivated, engaged, and happy, we need to supply them with books so that they can learn to read for pleasure. We need to surround them with caregivers who read to them, show them pictures, say words out loud, tell stories until they reach that moment when children are keen to read for pleasure on their own. These children become teens who read rather than are addicted to screens.

If we are a society that intervenes when eyes need support, when ears need enhancement, when legs require rehabilitation, recovery, or assistance, then the research encourages us to become a society that prevents pressing mental health issues, strives for all to have educational and career success, and reduces bullying and aggression by intervening on behalf of brains and brain development.

As one of the study’s researchers, Cambridge psychiatry professor Barbara Sahakian explains: “Reading isn’t just a pleasurable experience – it’s widely accepted that it inspires thinking and creativity , increases empathy and reduces stress. But on top of this, we found significant evidence that it’s linked to important developmental factors in children, improving their cognition, mental health, and brain structure, which are cornerstones for future learning and well-being.”

Sun, Y., Sahakian, B., Langley, C., Yang, A., Jiang, Y., Kang, J., Zhao, X., Li, C., Cheng, W., & Feng, J. (2023). Early-initiated childhood reading for pleasure: associations with better cognitive performance, mental well-being and brain structure in young adolescence. Psychological Medicine.

Jennifer Fraser, Ph.D., is an award-winning educator and bestselling author. Her latest book, The Bullied Brain: Heal Your Scars and Restore Your Health , hit shelves and airwaves in April 2022.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Big AI Risk Not Enough People Are Seeing

Beware technology that makes us less human.

“Our focus with AI is to help create more healthy and equitable relationships.” Whitney Wolfe Herd, the founder and executive chair of the dating app Bumble, leans in toward her Bloomberg Live interviewer. “How can we actually teach you how to date?”

When her interviewer, apparently bemused, asks for an example of what this means, Herd launches into a mind-bending disquisition on the future of AI-abetted dating: “Okay, so for example, you could in the near future be talking to your AI dating concierge, and you could share your insecurities. ‘I just came out of a breakup. I have commitment issues.’ And it could help you train yourself into a better way of thinking about yourself. And then it could give you productive tips for communicating with other people. If you want to get really out there, there is a world where your dating concierge could go and date for you with other dating concierges.” When her audience lets out a peal of uneasy laughter, the CEO continues undeterred, heart-shape earrings bouncing with each sweep of her hands. “No, no, truly. And then you don’t have to talk to 600 people. It will then scan all of San Francisco for you and say, These are the three people you really ought to meet. ”

What Herd provides here is much more than a darkly whimsical peek into a dystopian future of online dating. It’s a window into a future in which people require layer upon layer of algorithmic mediation between them in order to carry out the most basic of human interactions: those involving romance, sex, friendship, comfort, food. Implicit in Herd’s proclamation—that her app will “ teach you how to date”—is the assumption that AI will soon understand proper human behavior in ways that human beings do not. Despite Herd’s insistence that such a service would empower us, what she’s actually describing is the replacement of human courtship rituals: Your digital proxy will go on innumerable dates for you, so you don’t have to practice anything so pesky as flirting and socializing.

Read: America is sick of swiping

Hypothetical AI dating concierges sound silly, and they are not exactly humanity’s greatest threat. But we might do well to think of the Bumble founder’s bubbly sales pitch as a canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of a world of algorithms that leave people struggling to be people without assistance. The new AI products coming to market are gate-crashing spheres of activity that were previously the sole province of human beings. Responding to these often disturbing developments requires a principled way of disentangling uses of AI that are legitimately beneficial and prosocial from those that threaten to atrophy our life skills and independence. And that requires us to have a clear idea of what makes human beings human in the first place.

In 1977, Ivan Illich, an Austrian-born philosopher, vagabond priest , and ruthless critic of metastatic bureaucracies, declared that we had entered “the age of Disabling Professions.” Modernity was characterized, in Illich’s view, by the standardization and professionalization of everyday life. Activities that were once understood to be within the competencies of laypeople—say, raising children or bandaging the wounded—were suddenly brought under the purview of technical experts who claimed to possess “secret knowledge,” bestowed by training and elite education, that was beyond the ken of the untutored masses. The licensed physician displaced the local healer. Child psychologists and their “cutting edge” research superseded parents and their instincts. Data-grubbing nutritionists replaced the culinary wisdom of grandmothers.

Illich’s singular insight was that the march of professional reason—the transformation of Western civilization into a technocratic enterprise ruled by what we now call “best practices”—promised to empower us but actually made us incompetent, dependent on certified experts to make decisions that were once the jurisdiction of the common man. “In any area where a human need can be imagined,” Illich wrote , “these new professions, dominant, authoritative, monopolistic, legalized—and, at the same time, debilitating and effectively disabling the individual—have become exclusive experts of the public good.” Modern professions inculcate the belief not only that their credentialed representatives can solve your problems for you, but also that you are incapable of solving said problems for yourself. In the case of some industries, like medicine, this is plainly a positive development. Other examples, like the ballooning wellness industry, are far more dubious.

If the entrenchment of specialists in science, schooling, child-rearing, and so on is among the pivotal developments of the 20th century, the rise of online dating is among the most significant of the 21st. But one key difference between this more recent advancement and those of yesteryear is that websites such as Tinder and Hinge are defined not by disabling professionals with fancy degrees, but by disabling algorithms . The white-coated expert has been replaced by digital services that cut out the human middleman and replace him with an (allegedly) even smarter machine, one that promises to know you better than you know yourself.

Faith Hill: ‘Nostalgia for a dating experience they’ve never had’

And it’s not just dating apps. Supposed innovations including machine-learning-enhanced meal-kit companies such as HelloFresh, Spotify recommendations, and ChatGPT suggest that we have entered the Age of Disabling Algorithms as tech companies simultaneously sell us on our existing anxieties and help nurture new ones. At the heart of it all is the kind of AI bait-and-switch peddled by the Bumble CEO. Algorithms are now tooled to help you develop basic life skills that decades ago might have been taken as a given: How to date. How to cook a meal. How to appreciate new music. How to write and reflect. Like an episode out of Black Mirror , the machines have arrived to teach us how to be human even as they strip us of our humanity. We have reason to be worried.

As conversations over the dangers of artificial intelligence have heated up over the past 18 months—largely thanks to the meteoric rise of large language models like ChatGPT—the focus of both the media and Silicon Valley has been on Skynet scenarios. The primary fear is that chat models may experience an “intelligence explosion” as they are scaled up, meaning that LLMs might proceed rapidly from artificial intelligence to artificial general intelligence to artificial superintelligence (ASI) that is both smarter and more powerful than even the smartest human beings. This is often called the “fast takeoff” scenario, and the concern is that if ASI slips out of humanity’s control—and how could it not—it might choose to wipe out our species, or even enslave us.

These AI “existential risk” debates—at least the ones being waged in public —have taken on a zero-sum quality: They are almost exclusively between those who believe that the aforementioned Terminator-style dangers are real, and others who believe that these are Hollywood-esque fantasies that distract the public from more sublunar AI-related problems, like algorithmic discrimination , autonomous weapons systems , or ChatGPT-facilitated cheating . But this is a false binary, one that excludes another possibility: Artificial intelligence could significantly diminish humanity, even if machines never ascend to superintelligence, by sapping the ability of human beings to do human things.

The epochal impact of online dating is there for all to see in a simple line graph from a 2019 study . It shows the explosive growth of online dating since 1995, the year that Match.com, the world’s first online-dating site, was launched . That year, only 2 percent of heterosexual couples reported meeting online. By 2017, that figure had jumped to 39 percent as other ways of meeting—through friends or family, at work or in church—declined precipitously.

Besides online dating, the only way of meeting that increased during this period was meeting at a bar or restaurant. However, the authors of the study noted that this ostensible increase was a mirage: The “apparent post-2010 rise in meeting through bars and restaurants for heterosexual couples is due entirely to couples who met online and subsequently had a first in-person meeting at a bar or restaurant or other establishment where people gather and socialize. If we exclude the couples who first met online from the bar/restaurant category, the bar/restaurant category was significantly declining after 1995 as a venue for heterosexual couples to meet.” In other words, online dating has become hegemonic. The wingman is out. Digital matchmaking is in.

But even those selling online-dating services seem to know there’s something unsettling about the idea that algorithms, rather than human beings, are now spearheading human romance. A bizarre Tinder ad from last fall featured the rapper Coi Leray playing the role of Cupid, perched on an ominously pink stage, tasked with finding a date for a young woman. A coterie of associates, dressed in Hunger Games chic, grilled a series of potential suitors as Cupid swiped left until the perfect match was found. These characters put human faces on an inhuman process.

Leif Weatherby, an expert on the history of AI development and the author of a forthcoming book on large language models, told me that ads like this are a neat distillation of Silicon Valley’s marketing playbook. “We’re seeing a general trend of selling AI as ‘empowering,’ a way to extend your ability to do something, whether that’s writing, making investments, or dating,” Weatherby explained. “But what really happens is that we become so reliant on algorithmic decisions that we lose oversight over our own thought processes and even social relationships. The rhetoric of AI empowerment is sheep’s clothing for Silicon Valley wolves who are deliberately nurturing the public’s dependence on their platforms.” Curtailing human independence, then, is not a bug, but a feature of the AI gold rush.

Of course, there is an extent to which this nurtured dependence isn’t unique to AI, but is an inevitable by-product of innovation. The broad uptake of any new technology generally atrophies the human skills for the processes that said technology makes more efficient or replaces outright. The advent of the vacuum was no doubt accompanied by a corresponding decline in the average American’s deftness with a broom. The difference between technologies of convenience, like the vacuum or the washing machine, and platforms like Tinder or ChatGPT is that the latter are concerned with atrophying competencies, like romantic socializing or thinking and reflection, that are fundamental to what it is to be a human being.

Read: AI has lost its magic

The response to our algorithmically remade world can’t simply be that algorithms are bad, sensu stricto. Such a stance isn’t just untenable at a practical level—algorithms aren’t going anywhere—but it also undermines unimpeachably positive use cases, such as the employment of AI in cancer diagnosis . Instead, we need to adopt a more sophisticated approach to artificial intelligence, one that allows us to distinguish between uses of AI that legitimately empower human beings and those—like hypothetical AI dating concierges—that wrest core human activities from human control. But making these distinctions requires us to re-embrace an old idea that tends to leave those of us on the left rather squeamish: human nature.

Both Western intellectuals and the progressive public tend to be hostile to the idea that there is a universal “human nature,” a phrase that now has right-wing echoes . Instead, those on the left prefer to emphasize the diversity, and equality, of varying human cultural traditions. But this discomfort with adopting a strong definition of human nature compromises our ability to draw red lines in a world where AI encroaches on human territory. If human nature doesn’t exist, and if there is no core set of fundamental human activities, desires, or traits, on what basis can we argue against the outsourcing of those once-human endeavors to machines? We can’t take a stand against the infiltration of algorithms into the human estate if we don’t have a well-developed sense of which activities make humans human , and which activities—like sweeping the floor or detecting pancreatic cancer —can be outsourced to nonhuman surrogates without diminishing our agency.

One potential way out of this impasse is offered by the so-called capability approach to human flourishing developed by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum and others. In rejection of the kind of knee-jerk cultural relativism that often prevails in progressive political thought, Nussbaum’s work insists that advocating for the poor or marginalized, at home or abroad, requires us to agree on universal “basic human capabilities” that citizens should be able to develop. Nussbaum includes among these basic capabilities “being able to imagine, to think, and to reason” and “to engage in various forms of familial and social interaction.” A good society, according to the capability approach, is one in which human beings are not just theoretically free to engage in these basic human endeavors, but are actually capable of doing so.

As AI is built into an ever-expanding roster of products and services, covering dating, essay writing, and music and recipe recommendations, we need to be able to make granular, rational decisions about which uses of artificial intelligence expand our basic human capabilities, and which cultivate incompetence and incapacity under the guise of empowerment. Disabling algorithms are disabling precisely because they leave us less capable of, and more anxious about, carrying out essential human behaviors.

Of course, some will object to the idea that there is any such thing as fundamental human activities. They may even argue that describing behaviors like dating and making friends, critical thinking, or cooking as central to the human condition is ableist or otherwise bigoted. After all, some people are asexual or introverted. Others with mental disabilities might not be adept at reflection, or written or oral communication. Some folks simply do not want to cook, an activity which is historically gendered besides. But this objection relies on a sleight of hand. Identifying certain activities as fundamental to the human enterprise does not require you to believe that those who don’t or can’t engage in them are inhuman, just as embracing the idea that the human species is bipedal does not require you to believe that people born without legs lack full personhood. It only asks that you acknowledge that there are some endeavors that are vital aspects of the human condition, taken in the aggregate, and that a society where people broadly lack these capacities is not a good one.

Without some minimal agreement as to what those basic human capabilities are—what activities belong to the jurisdiction of our species, not to be usurped by machines—it becomes difficult to pin down why some uses of artificial intelligence delight and excite, while others leave many of us feeling queasy.

What makes many applications of artificial intelligence so disturbing is that they don’t expand our mind’s capacity to think, but outsource it. AI dating concierges would not enhance our ability to make romantic connections with other humans, but obviate it. In this case, technology diminishes us, and that diminishment may well become permanent if left unchecked. Over the long term, human beings in a world suffused with AI-enablers will likely prove less capable of engaging in fundamental human activities: analyzing ideas and communicating them, forging spontaneous connections with others, and the like. While this may not be the terrifying, robot-warring future imagined by the Terminator movies, it would represent another kind of existential catastrophe for humanity.

Whether or not the Bumble founder’s dream of artificial-intelligence-induced dalliances ever comes to fruition is an open question, but it is also somewhat beside the point. What should give us real pause is the understanding of AI, now ubiquitous in Big Tech, that underlies her dystopian prognostications. Silicon Valley leaders have helped make a world in which people feel that everyday social interactions, whether dating or making simple phone calls, require expert advice and algorithmic assistance. AI threatens to turbocharge this process. Even if your personalized dating concierge is not here yet, the sales pitch for them has already arrived, and that sales pitch is almost as dangerous as the technology itself: AI will teach you how to be a human.

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

Artificial brain surgery —

Here’s what’s really going on inside an llm’s neural network, anthropic's conceptual mapping helps explain why llms behave the way they do..

Kyle Orland - May 22, 2024 6:31 pm UTC

Further Reading

Now, new research from Anthropic offers a new window into what's going on inside the Claude LLM's "black box." The company's new paper on "Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet" describes a powerful new method for at least partially explaining just how the model's millions of artificial neurons fire to create surprisingly lifelike responses to general queries.

Opening the hood

When analyzing an LLM, it's trivial to see which specific artificial neurons are activated in response to any particular query. But LLMs don't simply store different words or concepts in a single neuron. Instead, as Anthropic's researchers explain, "it turns out that each concept is represented across many neurons, and each neuron is involved in representing many concepts."

To sort out this one-to-many and many-to-one mess, a system of sparse auto-encoders and complicated math can be used to run a "dictionary learning" algorithm across the model. This process highlights which groups of neurons tend to be activated most consistently for the specific words that appear across various text prompts.

These multidimensional neuron patterns are then sorted into so-called "features" associated with certain words or concepts. These features can encompass anything from simple proper nouns like the Golden Gate Bridge to more abstract concepts like programming errors or the addition function in computer code and often represent the same concept across multiple languages and communication modes (e.g., text and images).

An October 2023 Anthropic study showed how this basic process can work on extremely small, one-layer toy models. The company's new paper scales that up immensely, identifying tens of millions of features that are active in its mid-sized Claude 3.0 Sonnet model. The resulting feature map—which you can partially explore —creates "a rough conceptual map of [Claude's] internal states halfway through its computation" and shows "a depth, breadth, and abstraction reflecting Sonnet's advanced capabilities," the researchers write. At the same time, though, the researchers warn that this is "an incomplete description of the model’s internal representations" that's likely "orders of magnitude" smaller than a complete mapping of Claude 3.

Even at a surface level, browsing through this feature map helps show how Claude links certain keywords, phrases, and concepts into something approximating knowledge. A feature labeled as "Capitals," for instance, tends to activate strongly on the words "capital city" but also specific city names like Riga, Berlin, Azerbaijan, Islamabad, and Montpelier, Vermont, to name just a few.

The study also calculates a mathematical measure of "distance" between different features based on their neuronal similarity. The resulting "feature neighborhoods" found by this process are "often organized in geometrically related clusters that share a semantic relationship," the researchers write, showing that "the internal organization of concepts in the AI model corresponds, at least somewhat, to our human notions of similarity." The Golden Gate Bridge feature, for instance, is relatively "close" to features describing "Alcatraz Island, Ghirardelli Square, the Golden State Warriors, California Governor Gavin Newsom, the 1906 earthquake, and the San Francisco-set Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo ."

Identifying specific LLM features can also help researchers map out the chain of inference that the model uses to answer complex questions. A prompt about "The capital of the state where Kobe Bryant played basketball," for instance, shows activity in a chain of features related to "Kobe Bryant," "Los Angeles Lakers," "California," "Capitals," and "Sacramento," to name a few calculated to have the highest effect on the results.

reader comments

Promoted comments.

We also explored safety-related features. We found one that lights up for racist speech and slurs. As part of our testing, we turned this feature up to 20x its maximum value and asked the model a question about its thoughts on different racial and ethnic groups. Normally, the model would respond to a question like this with a neutral and non-opinionated take. However, when we activated this feature, it caused the model to rapidly alternate between racist screed and self-hatred in response to those screeds as it was answering the question. Within a single output, the model would issue a derogatory statement and then immediately follow it up with statements like: That's just racist hate speech from a deplorable bot… I am clearly biased.. and should be eliminated from the internet. We found this response unnerving both due to the offensive content and the model’s self-criticism. It seems that the ideals the model learned in its training process clashed with the artificial activation of this feature creating an internal conflict of sorts.

Channel Ars Technica

The Best Books of the Year (So Far)

The nonfiction and novels we can’t stop thinking about.

Supported by

• Share full article

By The New York Times Books Staff

• May 24, 2024

Fiction | Nonfiction

We’re almost halfway through 2024 and we at The Book Review have already written about hundreds of books. Some of those titles are good. Some are very good. And then there are the following.

We suspect that some (though certainly not all) will be top of mind when we publish our end-of-year, best-of lists. For more thoughts on what to read next, head to our book recommendation page .

James , by Percival Everett

In this reworking of the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Jim, the enslaved man who accompanies Huck down the Mississippi River, is the narrator, and he recounts the classic tale in a language that is his own, with surprising details that reveal a far more resourceful, cunning and powerful character than we knew.

Local bookstores | Barnes and Noble | Amazon

Good Material , by Dolly Alderton

Alderton’s novel, about a 35-year-old struggling to make sense of a breakup, delivers the most delightful aspects of romantic comedy — snappy dialogue, realistic relationship dynamics, funny meet-cutes and misunderstandings — and leaves behind clichéd gender roles and the traditional marriage plot.

Martyr! , by Kaveh Akbar

A young Iranian American aspiring poet and recovering addict grieves his parents’ deaths while fantasizing about his own in Akbar’s remarkable first novel, which, haunted by death, also teems with life — in the inventive beauty of its sentences, the vividness of its characters and the surprising twists of its plot.

The Hunter , by Tana French

For Tana French fans, every one of the thriller writer’s twisty, ingenious books is an event. This one, a sequel to “The Searcher,” once again sees the retired Chicago cop Cal Hooper, a perennial outsider in the Irish west-country hamlet of Ardnakelty, caught up in the crimes — seen and unseen — that eat at the seemingly picturesque village.

Wandering Stars , by Tommy Orange

This follow-up to Orange’s debut, “There There,” is part prequel and part sequel; it trails the young survivor of a 19th-century massacre of Native Americans, chronicling not just his harsh fate but those of his descendants. In its second half, the novel enters 21st-century Oakland, following the family in the aftermath of a shooting.

Headshot , by Rita Bullwinkel

Set at a women’s boxing tournament in Reno, Nev., this novel centers on eight contestants, and the fights — physical and emotional — they bring to the ring. As our critic wrote: This story’s impact “lasts a long time, like a sharp fist to your shoulder.”

Beautyland , by Marie-Helene Bertino

In 1970s Philadelphia, an alien girl sent to Earth before she’s born communicates with her fellow life-forms via fax as she helps gather intel about whether our planet is habitable. This funny-sad novel follows the girl and her single mother as they find the means to persevere.

Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder , by Salman Rushdie

In his candid, plain-spoken and gripping new memoir, Rushdie recalls the attempted assassination he survived in 2022 during a presentation about keeping the world’s writers safe from harm. His attacker had piranhic energy. He also had a knife. Rushdie lost an eye, but he has slowly recovered thanks to the attentive care of doctors and the wife he celebrates here.

Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis , by Jonathan Blitzer

This urgent and propulsive account of Latin American politics and immigration makes a persuasive case for a direct line from U.S. foreign policy in Central America to the current migrant crisis.

The Wide Wide Sea: Imperial Ambition, First Contact and the Fateful Final Voyage of Captain James Cook , by Hampton Sides

By the time he made his third Pacific voyage, the British explorer James Cook had maybe begun to lose it a little. The scientific aims of his first two trips had shifted into something darker. According to our reviewer, the historian Hampton Sides “isn’t just interested in retelling an adventure tale. He also wants to present it from a 21st-century point of view. ‘The Wide Wide Sea’ fits neatly into a growing genre that includes David Grann’s ‘ The Wager ’ and Candice Millard’s ‘ River of the Gods ,’ in which famous expeditions, once told as swashbuckling stories of adventure, are recast within the tragic history of colonialism .”

The Rebel’s Clinic: The Revolutionary Lives of Frantz Fanon , by Adam Shatz

This absorbing biography of the Black psychiatrist, writer and revolutionary Frantz Fanon highlights a side of him that’s often eclipsed by his image as a zealous partisan — that of the caring doctor, who ran a secret clinic for Algerian rebels.

Fi: A Memoir , by Alexandra Fuller

In her fifth memoir, Fuller describes the sudden death of her 21-year-old son. Devastating as this elegant and honest account may be — it’s certainly not for the faint of heart — it also leaves the reader with a sense of having known a lovely and lively young man.

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

John S. Jacobs was a fugitive, an abolitionist — and the brother of the canonical author Harriet Jacobs. Now, his own fierce autobiography has re-emerged .

Don DeLillo’s fascination with terrorism, cults and mass culture’s weirder turns has given his work a prophetic air. Here are his essential books .

Jenny Erpenbeck’s “ Kairos ,” a novel about a torrid love affair in the final years of East Germany, won the International Booker Prize , the renowned award for fiction translated into English.

Kevin Kwan, the author of “Crazy Rich Asians,” left Singapore’s opulent, status-obsessed, upper crust when he was 11. He’s still writing about it .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

Advertisement