Difference between revisions of "Epistemology"
m (→Skepticism) |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Epistemic thinking) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Epistemology''' is the analysis of the nature of [[knowledge]], how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know. In other words it is ''the academic term'' associated with study of how we conclude that certain things are true.<ref name="Virkler">{{cite book |last1= Virkler|first1= Henry A.|title= A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=rUgqAAAACAAJ&dq=virkler+A+Christian%27s+Guide+to+critical+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lzc9T9DDD4nN4QSy-fmACA&redir_esc=y |accessdate=16.2.2012 |type= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year= |month= |origyear= |publisher= Wipf and Stock Publishers|location= Eugene, OR|isbn= 1-59752-661-4|page= 3|pages=336 |at= How do we know the Truth? |chapter= 1 |quote= |ref= }}</ref> | + | [[File:Beliefs and knowledge and truths.png|right|thumbnail|400px|A Venn diagram picturing the traditional definition of [[knowledge]] as justified [[Truth|true]] [[belief]] (That is represented by the yellow circle). ]] |
| + | '''Epistemology''' is the analysis of the nature of [[knowledge]], how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know. In other words, it is ''the academic term'' associated with study of how we conclude that certain things are [[Truth|true]].<ref name="Virkler">{{cite book |last1= Virkler|first1= Henry A.|title= A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=rUgqAAAACAAJ&dq=virkler+A+Christian%27s+Guide+to+critical+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lzc9T9DDD4nN4QSy-fmACA&redir_esc=y |accessdate=16.2.2012 |type= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year= |month= |origyear= |publisher= Wipf and Stock Publishers|location= Eugene, OR|isbn= 1-59752-661-4|page= 3|pages=336 |at= How do we know the Truth? |chapter= 1 |quote= |ref= }}</ref> | ||
| − | + | == Epistemic thinking == | |
| + | |||
| + | ''See also:'' [[Rational thinking]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Epistemic thinking refers to how people understand the nature of knowledge—what counts as [[knowledge]], how it is justified, and how we distinguish reliable from unreliable information. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === What epistemic thinking means === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Epistemic thinking is the cognitive process through which individuals evaluate what knowledge is, how it is formed, and how we determine whether something is true or trustworthy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It involves examining: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. The nature of [[knowledge]] and [[truth]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. The sources of knowledge — perception, [[Logical reasoning|reasoning]], testimony, memory, and related means of knowing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. The justification of [[belief]]s — what makes a belief well‑supported rather than mere opinion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The reliability of [[information]] — how we distinguish credible claims from unreliable ones. | ||
== Traditional View of Knowledge == | == Traditional View of Knowledge == | ||
| − | + | Philosophical tradition going back as far as [[Plato]] characterises a proposition as known where it is, at a minimum: | |
1) Believed | 1) Believed | ||
| Line 13: | Line 32: | ||
3) it is true. | 3) it is true. | ||
| − | Most modern epistemology concerns itself with two problems, the adequacy of that definition and analysis of what it means for a belief to be "justified". | + | Most modern epistemology concerns itself with two problems, the adequacy of that definition and analysis of what it means for a belief to be "justified". |
| − | == Is the "traditional view" adequate? == | + | == Is the "traditional view" adequate? == |
| − | In his essay [http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html Is Justified, True Belief Knowledge?] Edmund Gettier gave a number of examples where the traditional view appeared to be ''insufficient'' to establish a proposition as known. That is to say the examples were of beliefs that | + | In his essay [http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html Is Justified, True Belief Knowledge?] Edmund Gettier gave a number of examples where the traditional view appeared to be ''insufficient'' to establish a proposition as known. That is to say the examples were of beliefs that were both true and justified, but do not appear to have been "known", usually because they are "accidentally true". Solutions to the "Gettier Problem" centre around ensuring that there is a direct connection between justification and truth. |
| − | + | ||
| − | == What does it mean for a belief to be "justified"? == | + | == What does it mean for a belief to be "justified"? == |
Whilst it is, almost, universally held that if a proposition is known then it is true the reverse is not the case. If you flip a coin and correctly call "heads" you speak the truth but you did not know, you guessed. To be known there must be something more than true belief, this is what is meant by "justification". | Whilst it is, almost, universally held that if a proposition is known then it is true the reverse is not the case. If you flip a coin and correctly call "heads" you speak the truth but you did not know, you guessed. To be known there must be something more than true belief, this is what is meant by "justification". | ||
| Line 24: | Line 43: | ||
=== Reliabalism === | === Reliabalism === | ||
| − | Reliabalists hold that a belief is justified if it has been arrived at by a reliable process. For example you might look at a reliable clock and come to believe that it is now 2:00 pm. Provided it ''is'' 2:00 pm (i.e. that the proposition is true) and that the clock is reliable then a reliabalist would hold that you ''know'' that it is 2:00 pm. | + | Reliabalists hold that a belief is justified if it has been arrived at by a reliable process. For example, you might look at a reliable clock and come to believe that it is now 2:00 pm. Provided it ''is'' 2:00 pm (i.e. that the proposition is true) and that the clock is reliable then a reliabalist would hold that you ''know'' that it is 2:00 pm. |
| − | === Internalism and Externalism === | + | === Internalism and Externalism === |
An "internalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is internal to the subject believing it, for example his or her mental state. An "externalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is external to the subject believing it, for example the reports of others. | An "internalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is internal to the subject believing it, for example his or her mental state. An "externalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is external to the subject believing it, for example the reports of others. | ||
| + | == Epistemic humility == | ||
| + | ''See also:'' [[Epistemic humility]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Epistemic humility]] is the application of the virtue of [[Humility]] to questions of the ability to know something.<ref>[http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/the-argument-for-epistemic-humility.html The argument for epistemic humility]</ref> | ||
== Skepticism == | == Skepticism == | ||
| Line 35: | Line 58: | ||
Whilst skepticism is normally a methodological conceit some philosophers do subscribe to a skeptical position.[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625] | Whilst skepticism is normally a methodological conceit some philosophers do subscribe to a skeptical position.[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
*[[Philosophy]] | *[[Philosophy]] | ||
| + | *[[Mental framework]] | ||
*[[Postmodern science]] | *[[Postmodern science]] | ||
| + | *[[Philosophical naturalism]] | ||
| + | *[[Faith and reason]] | ||
| + | *[[Argument from religious experience]] | ||
| + | *[[Swinburne's argument from religious experience]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == External links == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[https://efficiencyandmanagement.blogspot.com/2025/12/intelligence-epistemic-rigor.html Intelligence ≠ epistemic rigor] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | {{Reflist}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
[[Category:Epistemology| ]] | [[Category:Epistemology| ]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Scientific Disciplines]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Methodology of Science]] |
Latest revision as of 16:12, May 25, 2026
Epistemology is the analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know. In other words, it is the academic term associated with study of how we conclude that certain things are true.[1]
Contents
Epistemic thinking
See also: Rational thinking
Epistemic thinking refers to how people understand the nature of knowledge—what counts as knowledge, how it is justified, and how we distinguish reliable from unreliable information.
What epistemic thinking means
Epistemic thinking is the cognitive process through which individuals evaluate what knowledge is, how it is formed, and how we determine whether something is true or trustworthy.
It involves examining:
1. The nature of knowledge and truth.
2. The sources of knowledge — perception, reasoning, testimony, memory, and related means of knowing.
3. The justification of beliefs — what makes a belief well‑supported rather than mere opinion.
The reliability of information — how we distinguish credible claims from unreliable ones.
Traditional View of Knowledge
Philosophical tradition going back as far as Plato characterises a proposition as known where it is, at a minimum:
1) Believed
2) That belief is "justified" and
3) it is true.
Most modern epistemology concerns itself with two problems, the adequacy of that definition and analysis of what it means for a belief to be "justified".
Is the "traditional view" adequate?
In his essay Is Justified, True Belief Knowledge? Edmund Gettier gave a number of examples where the traditional view appeared to be insufficient to establish a proposition as known. That is to say the examples were of beliefs that were both true and justified, but do not appear to have been "known", usually because they are "accidentally true". Solutions to the "Gettier Problem" centre around ensuring that there is a direct connection between justification and truth.
What does it mean for a belief to be "justified"?
Whilst it is, almost, universally held that if a proposition is known then it is true the reverse is not the case. If you flip a coin and correctly call "heads" you speak the truth but you did not know, you guessed. To be known there must be something more than true belief, this is what is meant by "justification".
Several theories, and controversies, about justification have arisen.
Reliabalism
Reliabalists hold that a belief is justified if it has been arrived at by a reliable process. For example, you might look at a reliable clock and come to believe that it is now 2:00 pm. Provided it is 2:00 pm (i.e. that the proposition is true) and that the clock is reliable then a reliabalist would hold that you know that it is 2:00 pm.
Internalism and Externalism
An "internalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is internal to the subject believing it, for example his or her mental state. An "externalist" holds that the justification for a proposition is external to the subject believing it, for example the reports of others.
Epistemic humility
See also: Epistemic humility
Epistemic humility is the application of the virtue of Humility to questions of the ability to know something.[2]
Skepticism
Skepticism, the belief that nothing is known, has been a key methodological assumption of epistemologists since Descartes. In order to demonstrate knowledge the epistemologist imagines the best arguments a skeptic could muster and tries to refute them.
Whilst skepticism is normally a methodological conceit some philosophers do subscribe to a skeptical position.[1]
See also
- Philosophy
- Mental framework
- Postmodern science
- Philosophical naturalism
- Faith and reason
- Argument from religious experience
- Swinburne's argument from religious experience
External links
References
- ↑ "1", A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 336. ISBN 1-59752-661-4. Retrieved on 16.2.2012.
- ↑ The argument for epistemic humility
