- Nov 20, 2025
- 2
- 3
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Freethinker
- Marital Status
- Single
My name is Sam Naccarato. I have a B.A. in philosophy (1981) and I’ve spent over 45 years thinking about philosophical questions. For the past twenty+ years, I've focused on epistemology, the study of knowledge, with a strong Wittgensteinian approach drawn from his later work, especially On Certainty.
My Recent Work:
I recently completed a book titled From Testimony to Knowledge: Evaluating Near-Death Experiences, which applies epistemic standards to testimonial evidence. The book introduces what I call JTB+U (Justified True Belief plus Understanding) and introduces "guardrails" for responsible belief: No False Grounds (NFG), Practice Safety, and Defeater Screening. This framework applies broadly to evaluating knowledge claims, including those based on testimony.
I've also written a paper connecting Wittgenstein's hinge epistemology to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, exploring how both reveal necessary structural limits of formalized systems. I'm also working on a second book, which I'll introduce later.
My Philosophical Approach:
My epistemology is grounded in Wittgenstein's later philosophy, particularly his concept of "hinges," those bedrock certainties that function as preconditions for inquiry rather than conclusions within it. Chapters 6 and 7 of From Testimony to Knowledge develop this Wittgensteinian foundation in detail. I've identified that hinges operate at three levels: prelinguistic (before language acquisition), nonlinguistic (shown in action), and linguistic (expressed propositionally). Some hinges are metaphysically necessary (like "other minds exist"), while others are contingent.
I believe this framework has proven remarkably powerful for distinguishing between genuine foundational certainties and beliefs that require justification but often avoid scrutiny by claiming foundational status.
Why I'm Here:
I'm deeply interested in how we evaluate historical claims, especially those that rest on testimony. What standards should we use? How do we distinguish between strong and weak testimonial evidence? When does testimony rise to the level of knowledge, and when does it remain mere belief?
These questions apply universally, to scientific claims, historical events, legal proceedings, and yes, to religious truth claims as well. I believe the same standards should apply consistently across all domains.
I'm here to engage in philosophical discussion and welcome serious engagement with these ideas. I'm not interested in dismissing anyone's beliefs, but I am interested in understanding what justifies them and whether those justifications can withstand careful examination.
Looking forward to thoughtful conversations.
Sam
My Recent Work:
I recently completed a book titled From Testimony to Knowledge: Evaluating Near-Death Experiences, which applies epistemic standards to testimonial evidence. The book introduces what I call JTB+U (Justified True Belief plus Understanding) and introduces "guardrails" for responsible belief: No False Grounds (NFG), Practice Safety, and Defeater Screening. This framework applies broadly to evaluating knowledge claims, including those based on testimony.
I've also written a paper connecting Wittgenstein's hinge epistemology to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, exploring how both reveal necessary structural limits of formalized systems. I'm also working on a second book, which I'll introduce later.
My Philosophical Approach:
My epistemology is grounded in Wittgenstein's later philosophy, particularly his concept of "hinges," those bedrock certainties that function as preconditions for inquiry rather than conclusions within it. Chapters 6 and 7 of From Testimony to Knowledge develop this Wittgensteinian foundation in detail. I've identified that hinges operate at three levels: prelinguistic (before language acquisition), nonlinguistic (shown in action), and linguistic (expressed propositionally). Some hinges are metaphysically necessary (like "other minds exist"), while others are contingent.
I believe this framework has proven remarkably powerful for distinguishing between genuine foundational certainties and beliefs that require justification but often avoid scrutiny by claiming foundational status.
Why I'm Here:
I'm deeply interested in how we evaluate historical claims, especially those that rest on testimony. What standards should we use? How do we distinguish between strong and weak testimonial evidence? When does testimony rise to the level of knowledge, and when does it remain mere belief?
These questions apply universally, to scientific claims, historical events, legal proceedings, and yes, to religious truth claims as well. I believe the same standards should apply consistently across all domains.
I'm here to engage in philosophical discussion and welcome serious engagement with these ideas. I'm not interested in dismissing anyone's beliefs, but I am interested in understanding what justifies them and whether those justifications can withstand careful examination.
Looking forward to thoughtful conversations.
Sam
