What is Epistemology?

The Theory of Knowledge – Is Knowledge Possible?

Jan 15, 2010
Doug Frame

Rene Descartes - Public Domain

Epistemology refers to theories of knowledge. How can one know things? Epistemology is subdivided into rationalism and empiricism. What is truth?

Epistemology is synonymous with theories of knowledge. For a claim to be true the claim must have a foundation. Yet finding a firm foundation can be difficult. Epistemology is subdivided into rationalism and empiricism which are considered ways of acquiring knowledge. Yet these two concepts have limitations. Truth is essential for one to have knowledge; how can one know something if what they think is true is in fact false?

Problems with Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism

Epistemology must be grounded on a firm foundation for otherwise how can ones claims to knowledge be supported? Arguments without foundations rely on circular reasoning or an infinite regress. When an claim is based on circular reasoning, the argument itself is supported based on a previous claim, but at the same time the claim provides support for itself farther around the circular chain.

Infinite regress is different. How can something provide support for something else if the claim that provides support is not founded by itself or something prior? If all claims must be supported, then each prior claim needs support as well. If the argument is not well founded then it relies on the previous claim, and so on, and so on, therefore one ends up in a infinite regress. There is no foundation.

Anti-Foundationalism argues to the contrary; some people claim truth is relative. To some it is not important if values differ. This can thrust one into a moral quandary. For example it is considered for certain areas in Asia and Africa that female genital mutilation is acceptable morally, but people in the West would reject this.

Problems With Rationalism and Empiricism

According to epistemology there are two ways to acquire knowledge. First is rationalism in which one possess' rational principles independent of experience. These rational principles exist in the mind, which is immortal and immutable. That is because something which does not exist in space and time cannot be destroyed. Therefore rational principles exist independently of ones physical bodies, since ones body is spatial and temporal and therefore subject to destruction.

Descartes talks about the relationship, or lack thereof, between mind and body, how the two can interface if they are so dissimilar, and he is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of how a mind and body can interact.

There are problems with empiricism too. One is called the Veil of Perception, introduced by John Locke's representationalism. How does one perceive anything? Does one see the thing in itself? To think this would be called naive realism. If one does see things as they are, then how does one see them? Does the matter itself fall into one's eyes? One may counter that what one sees is reflected light. Believing what one sees is a representation of what is being viewed, is called representation realism. And if what one sees is not exactly as it exists in itself, how can one say that this thing even resembles what one sees, or even exists at all? If the lights are turned out might the object cease to exist? In other words if one does not perceive the thing in itself, how can one know they perceive the thing at all?

The Types of Truth

What is truth? In order to have knowledge one must know that certain opinions are true. While truth is essential to having knowledge, one must realize that there are different standards for truth. The types of truths include the following:

Correspondence Theory of Truth
Pragmatic Theory of Truth
Coherence Theory of Truth

First is the correspondence theory of truth. That means there is a correspondence between what one thinks and the world. For example to say the sky is blue would be true because the sky is in fact blue, (well the sky usually appear blue to human eyes).

Another theory of truth is the pragmatic theory of truth. This is the idea if it works then it is true. For example if one were to ask if the computer works properly, and one turns it on and all goes well, then this statement would in fact be true. It is true that it works properly.

Finally, there is the coherence theory of truth. That is what people find coherent is, in fact, true. When figuring out mathematical equations, if the derivations are coherent (hold together) then the final formula is in fact true.

Epistemology is a huge subject and this just scratches the surface. Epistemology includes issues surrounding foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, and it's subdivisions are rationalism and empiricism. For something to be known as knowledge, it must in fact be true. There are three basic theories for truth, correspondence, pragmatic, and the coherence theories of truth. Searching for truth is a worthy pursuit.

Source:

Honderich, Ted. Ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Doug Frame - Has a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and a Master of Arts in Philosophy as well. Was a college and university professor for 8 years. Has ...

Comments

Feb 21, 2010 5:49 AM

Guest :

A Theory of Knowledge

Everything interacts with its environment - from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest galaxy. We are no different.

Interaction insinuates dynamic inter-relationship. Knowledge can be defined as “post-active” comprehension. The dynamic inter-relationship involved in the comprehension necessary to achieve knowledge is the tension between opposites, or what may be called reciprocal reciprocation (RR).

A RR consists of two diametrically opposing concepts which cannot exist without each other. They are mutually exclusive in concept and definition, yet mutually inclusive in the operation of comprehension.

The opposition of the positive and the negative is the most readily recognized RR (ie. Yes and no). The simplest example is left and right. If something is left (yes) then it is not right (no) - and vice versa. A technological analogy of this would be the digital computer, where a circuit is either on (yes) or off (no).

Two important facets of RR need to be under stood. First, one must remember that RR allows comprehension so that definition may be determined - at which time we acquire what is called knowledge. Thus even the slightest differentiation of objects or ideas is done through the use of RR: something just left of center will still be realized to be to the right of something - or, something we comprehend to be blue-green will be neither blue nor green, but something else.

The second, and more subtle facet, is that of prioritization of comprehension. The standard concept of space, for instance, is meaningless unless one first comprehends the concepts of left and right, up and down, and width and depth. The concept of space, therefore, is a result of a cascading of basic RR concepts into a more abstract concept of a higher intellectual level (space). The higher level concepts then be defined and internalized (using RR) for use in the resolution of other ambiguities required for humans to expand knowledge.

Knowledge has been referred to as the comprehension of the realities of the universe. Defining reality has been argued throughout history, but there appears to be two legitimate states of existence.

First there is the objective existence proposed by the ancient Greeks. They proposed that something either exists or it does not exist. [Notice the reciprocal nature of the argument.] Since it would be incomprehensible to think that nothing exists, then something must exist. This is objective existence.

Secondly, there is the subjective existence so eloquently stated by Descartes in the phrase: “I think, therefore I am”. This phrase resulted from a realization that no matter how much one can deny the reality of anything, one cannot deny that one is denying because one would still be denying.
[Notice again the requirement of RR in the argument of denial]. Our cognitive process, then would be an integral part of this subjective existence.

These two states of existence (or reality) are a RR: one cannot be put into operation without the other. Our subjective existence allows comprehension of our objective existence, which allows our subjective existence comprehension of our objective existence, which allows.......

The resulting scenario may be called the “reality situation”. This dynamic inter-relationship between objective and subjective existence is not a classical attempt at an explanation of reality, but rather, an undeniable situation in which the rational mind finds itself. It is impossible to separate our subjective observations from the objective universe because one is meaningless without the other. Consequently, as we cannot employ one without the other, all of our comprehensions required for knowledge come to us via this primary reciprocal reciprocation of subjective and objective existence.

The ramifications of this are profound:

1. RR does not allow for the comprehension of infinities or singularities. It only allows for comprehension of those things found within the finite parameters of various concepts because RR is an inherently finite inter-relationship. Therefore, the total amount of knowledge available to us is finite.

2. Since the rational mind operates within the “reality situation”, there is something more to the universe than just knowledge. More than our obvious feelings and emotions, this involves the possibility of transcending outside our reality situation into
a truly bizarre realm where RR no longer holds legitimacy. As a matter of definition, faith (that which one believes but cannot be proved) falls outside of our reality situation. Since we all have faith in logic, this demonstrates that in some manner we all operate outside our reality situation.

3. A misconception of a very basic RR may lead to major misconceptions of a more abstract concept (e.g. Ptolemy’s universe was predicated on the relevance of astral motion to our position on Earth). Could a misconception of basic concepts such as
space or time be leading us down an analogous anomaly?

Realization of subjective and objective existence as the primary RR from which we derive knowledge can open new avenues for exploration as well as help clarify research. After all, how can you claim to know something if you don’t understand the process of knowledge itself?

Thomas A. Roll
tomroll@fuse.net