How Do You Know That What You Know Is True? That’s Epistemology
Peter Ellerton , 7 Aug 17
       

How can you justify your knowledge? Epistemology has a few answers. Flickr/World's Directionh

How do you know what the weather will be like tomorrow? How do you know how old the Universe is? How do you know if you are thinking rationally?

These and other questions of the “how do you know?” variety are the business of epistemology, the area of philosophy concerned with understanding the nature of knowledge and belief.

Epistemology is about understanding how we come to know that something is the case, whether it be a matter of fact such as “the Earth is warming” or a matter of value such as “people should not just be treated as means to particular ends”.

It’s even about interrogating the odd presidential tweet to determine its credibility.

Epistemology doesn’t just ask questions about what we should do to find things out; that is the task of all disciplines to some extent. For example, science, history and anthropology all have their own methods for finding things out.

Epistemology has the job of making those methods themselves the objects of study. It aims to understand how methods of inquiry can be seen as rational endeavours.

Epistemology, therefore, is concerned with the justification of knowledge claims.

The need for epistemology

Whatever the area in which we work, some people imagine that beliefs about the world are formed mechanically from straightforward reasoning, or that they pop into existence fully formed as a result of clear and distinct perceptions of the world.

But if the business of knowing things was so simple, we’d all agree on a bunch of things that we currently disagree about – such as how to treat each other, what value to place on the environment, and the optimal role of government in a society.

That we do not reach such an agreement means there is something wrong with that model of belief formation.

We don’t all agree on everything. Flickr/Frank, CC BY-NC

It is interesting that we individually tend to think of ourselves as clear thinkers and see those who disagree with us as misguided. We imagine that the impressions we have about the world come to us unsullied and unfiltered. We think we have the capacity to see things just as they really are, and that it is others who have confused perceptions.

As a result, we might think our job is simply to point out where other people have gone wrong in their thinking, rather than to engage in rational dialogue allowing for the possibility that we might actually be wrong.

But the lessons of philosophy, psychology and cognitive science teach us otherwise. The complex, organic processes that fashion and guide our reasoning are not so clinically pure.

Not only are we in the grip of a staggeringly complex array of cognitive biases and dispositions, but we are generally ignorant of their role in our thinking and decision-making.

Combine this ignorance with the conviction of our own epistemic superiority, and you can begin to see the magnitude of the problem. Appeals to “common sense” to overcome the friction of alternative views just won’t cut it.

We need, therefore, a systematic way of interrogating our own thinking, our models of rationality, and our own sense of what makes for a good reason. It can be used as a more objective standard for assessing the merit of claims made in the public arena.

Sign in to view full article

       
How Robots Can Help Us Embrace a More Human View of Disability
When dealing with the otherness of disability, the Victorians in their shame built huge out-of-sight asylums, and their legacy of ...
Thusha Rajendran
Tue, 9 May 17
My Smartphone, Myself: Digital Separation Anxiety in The Postmodern World
Has this ever happened to you: you accidentally leave your cell phone at home, and it feels like your soul ...
Abraham Martínez González
Wed, 18 Jan 17
How and Why We are Moving Beyond GDP as a Measure of Human Progress
How we track our economy influences everything from government spending and taxes to home lending and business investment. In our ...
Tani Shaw
Thu, 5 Jan 17
Our Experiments Taught Us Why People Troll
“Fail at life. Go bomb yourself.”
Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil
Mon, 6 Mar 17
Why Multilingualism is Good For Economic Growth
If your strategy is to trade only with people that speak English that’s going to be a poor strategy.
Gabrielle Hogan-Brun
Mon, 6 Feb 17
An Epoch Times Survey
Hachi.Tech
An Epoch Times Survey
Sports Elements
Read about Forced Organ Harvesting
Sports Elements