Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

In a recent Aeon article (link below), Jonny Robinson argues that one's attitude towards knowledge is more important than mere knowing.

"Imagine the following. You are living a life with enough money and health and time so as to allow an hour or two of careless relaxation, sitting on the sofa at the end of the day in front of a large television, half-heartedly watching a documentary about solar energy with a glass of wine and scrolling through your phone. You happen to hear a fact about climate change, something to do with recent emission figures. Now, on that same night, a friend who is struggling to meet her financial commitments has just arrived at her second job and misses out on the documentary (and the relaxation). Later in the week, when the two of you meet for a drink and your friend is ignorant of recent emission figures, what kind of intellectual or moral superiority is really justified on your part?"

Robinson argues that the pursuit of knowledge, and therefore, one's attitude towards knowledge acquisition is what matters. As he points out, "This example is designed to show that knowledge of the truth might very well have nothing to do with our own efforts or character. Many are born into severe poverty with a slim chance at a good education, and others grow up in religious or social communities that prohibit certain lines of enquiry...At the opposite end of the scale, some are effectively handed the truth about some matter as if it were a mint on their pillow, pleasantly materializing and not a big deal. Pride in this mere knowledge of the truth ignores the way in which some people come to possess it without any care or effort, and the way that others strive relentlessly against the odds for it and still miss out."

So, what would be the right attitude towards knowledge acquisition? Robinson highlights these epistemic virtues:

1. Intellectual humility = a willingness to be wrong
2. Intellectual courage = to pursue truths that make us uncomfortable
3. Open mindedness = to contemplate all side of an argument, limiting preconceptions
4. Curiosity = to be continually seeking

Robinson thinks the one who inhabits these epistemic virtues has a better relationship to the truth than the one who merely has knowledge given to them.

I am curious about what others think. Is one's attitude towards knowledge acquisition of more value than simply knowing? Does it matter how one comes to know something? What do you think about Robinson's "epistemic virtues"? For Christians, are they commensurate with Christian faith? Why, or why not? I am also curious what atheists, agnostics, and seekers think as well.

What do you think of virtue in terms of how people use what they know in relation to others? CF is such an interesting space to observe how people handle what they "know" and how they treat others who disagree. Sometimes (too many times?), we see "knowledge" wielded like a sledge-hammer instead of a gift worth pursuing. I am inclined to think that those who inhabit the above epistemic virtues will approach conversations differently than those who simply "know." But, I could be wrong.

Would you rather have a fish or know how to fish? | Aeon Ideas

Halbhh · Feb 27, 2020

Those 'epistemic virtues' listed are certainly ones I respect, and if I encounter someone using them, then I know it matters to try to bring forward my best open questions, because the person might actually listen to what I'm saying, lol. They might be able to help or provoke something on that edge of understanding.

Is one's attitude towards knowledge acquisition of more value than simply knowing? I think so, because that attitude results in a much more rapid ability to let go of faulty theories or information and get better theories or information, and that progression works well over time!

Does it matter how one comes to know something? Not sure.

What do you think about Robinson's "epistemic virtues"? They are total winners! I actually got lucky in a way for some of that when my father gave me Frank Herbert's novel Dune when I was about 13 or 14, and though I was kinda young for it, later by age 15 or so, I began to grok it. The hero, Paul Atreides, faced an evolving very challenging situation(s) where he needed to constantly question what he thought he knew, work to let go of old ways of thinking about things to have a chance to survive, let go of old views/ information, and be very sensitive and constantly seeking new insights and information, trying to suss out new understanding, over and over, and I was so impressed with that I decided as a 15 yr old to try to do that myself, just like Paul.

For Christians, are they commensurate with Christian faith? It seems to me especially so! Without that willingness to learn new things, one tends to be holding on to their own old thinking, instead of listening to the higher thoughts/understanding from Christ, who leads us into new things.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

Halbhh said:
Those 'epistemic virtues' listed are certainly ones I respect, and if I encounter someone using them, then I know it matters to try to bring forward my best open questions, because the person might actually listen to what I'm saying

I agree. It makes a difference when you can tell another person's openness and willingness to engage. I know myself, I will shut down if it appears the other person's approach is only attack. But, if I can tell they are willing to pursue a line of reasoning with me, I will open up. In that case, I am willing to be vulnerable in the hopes of learning something of value.

In my life, I have had a handful of friends that exhibited the above virtues. I learned things in discussion with them that I probably never would have discovered on my own. But it all depended on our mutual willingness to express freely, disagree freely, all in a context of humility. In really changes the game, so to speak.

Halbhh said:
What do you think about Robinson's "epistemic virtues"? They are total winners! I actually got lucky in a way for some of that when my father gave me Frank Herbert's novel Dune when I was about 13 or 14, and though I was kinda young for it, later by age 15 or so, I began to grok it. The hero, Paul Atreides, faced an evolving very challenging situation(s) where he needed to constantly question what he thought he knew, work to let go of old ways of thinking about things to have a chance to survive, let go of old views/ information, and be very sensitive and constantly seeking new insights and information, trying to suss out new understanding, over and over, and I was so impressed with that I decided as a 15 yr old to try to do that myself, just like Paul.

How interesting that you acquired these kinds of epistemic virtues by reading Dune! I haven't read it, but now I want to. Very cool!

Halbhh said:
For Christians, are they commensurate with Christian faith? It seems to me especially so! Without that willingness to learn new things, one tends to be holding on to their own old thinking, instead of listening to the higher thoughts/understanding from Christ, who leads us into new things.

I don't disagree, at all. But, I wonder. I'm not trying to paint with too broad a brush, but it really does seem to me that some Christians are afraid of the kind of openness and vulnerability that these epistemic virtues engender. There can be this sensibility that says I need to hold on to my way of seeing things with a death grip, lest it all fall apart. Or, I may open myself up to unforeseen dangers if I pursue lines of thought with which I am not familiar.

Halbhh · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
How interesting that you acquired these kinds of epistemic virtues by reading Dune! I haven't read it, but now I want to. Very cool!

Well...that novel would only be ok I think for a Christian that is already doing fully what Christ says in Matthew 7:24-27 I'm pretty sure (which is already true in general in life), because Herbert is also one of the strong storms of the world that will collapse houses built on sand, too! I'd not recommend it to many Christians actually, unless I sensed they were active in their faith precisely in the Matthew 7:24-27 way. It's a sophisticated novel with a strong atheism theory behind it about religion, so it's not what you'd recommend to someone you don't know is doing Matthew 7:24-27! You should not, if they aren't. It's like a hidden shoal in the water a ship could wreck on. (but we know there are many shoals, storms, not just this one)

But...for me while some ideas in the novel were one thing that seemed to be part of how/why I left Christianity (for quite a while), that same mental habit you write about above I'd gotten partly from the same novel also helped me later question the assumptions in that atheism also (it has assumptions, though of course most would not like to recognize that), and those ideal mental practices thought of as ideal (openness, curiosity as explicit values I intentionally sought to do daily) in turn allowed me later in time to hear some of Christ's words again, because I thought it was a good idea to be open to learn new things, and wanted to investigate more closely. That's not the only factor that made me listen to Christ better(!), but at least that one obstacle wasn't there: I didn't view it intellectually as legitimate to have a blockade against learning from Christ.

Halbhh · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
I don't disagree, at all. But, I wonder. I'm not trying to paint with too broad a brush, but it really does seem to me that some Christians are afraid of the kind of openness and vulnerability that these epistemic virtues engender. There can be this sensibility that says I need to hold on to my way of seeing things with a death grip, lest it all fall apart. Or, I may open myself up to unforeseen dangers if I pursue lines of thought with which I am not familiar.

Yes, and we see that quite strongly on the internet, I think more than in person, from my many discussions in person. In person, many seem more....able to entertain more than one idea, and usually people don't feel threatened at all by quite a few of the competing ideas/views among believers, such as (one I see as really peripheral) for or against the information that the Earth is 4.5bn years old -- they are not even slightly ruffled by either young or old idea ideas/information some put forward (actually few or none would even mention this at our church, as it simply isn't even an interest to anyone enough to bring up, so I only know other's reactions because I brought it up from curiosity about their viewpoints), but comfortable with either one being around and even can entertain either without much concern(!).

So, we see much more rigid viewpoints on the internet than we find in person it seems. It makes sense in that some with pronounced devotion to certain theories/doctrines, will go on the internet to preach their theory/doctrine (instead of the gospel!).

The same for politics. People of strongly clear opposite views in politics in our church are close good friends that seek each other out often in real affection right in front of my eyes! I love that. We can get that some here with some people (not all!), but it's harder online perhaps, because in person I can show them I'm non-judgmental while they are talking, whereas online people have learned to be defensive.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

Halbhh said:
but it's harder online perhaps, because in person I can show them I'm non-judgmental while they are talking, whereas online people have learned to be defensive.

That's such a good point. When we are speaking with others in person they can get a sense of where we are coming from by our bodies and expressions that, even with the help of emojis, doesn't quite come across online.

Halbhh · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
What do you think of virtue in terms of how people use what they know in relation to others? CF is such an interesting space to observe how people handle what they "know" and how they treat others who disagree. Sometimes (too many times?), we see "knowledge" wielded like a sledge-hammer instead of a gift worth pursuing.

Such key questions.

It's tempting if we followed the worst impulses we occasionally have, that when someone like a flat-earther shows up to want to go over there and tell them they are fallen into evil or ego, and are harming other people. But that's really often just a condemnation, and the wise Teacher tells us not to condemn others! We have pretty good instructions if we can remember or hear them: "2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." and "12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you." So that ideally, and more, as our always-aim, we should gently and lovingly encourage those confused toward relying more on Christ, and less on themselves. I find I do so much better if I pray though the prayer Christ gave us to pray each day in Matthew 6.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

Halbhh said:
But that's really often just a condemnation, and the wise Teacher tells us not to condemn others!

I know. I know from experience! Sometimes I need to slow down before I respond. And, keep the prayer in my heart.

Josheb · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
In a recent Aeon article (link below), Jonny Robinson argues that one's attitude towards knowledge is more important than mere knowing.

How does Jonny Robinson know that?

Jonny Robinson is arguing a false dichotomy.

grasping the after wind · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
In a recent Aeon article (link below), Jonny Robinson argues that one's attitude towards knowledge is more important than mere knowing.

"Imagine the following. You are living a life with enough money and health and time so as to allow an hour or two of careless relaxation, sitting on the sofa at the end of the day in front of a large television, half-heartedly watching a documentary about solar energy with a glass of wine and scrolling through your phone. You happen to hear a fact about climate change, something to do with recent emission figures. Now, on that same night, a friend who is struggling to meet her financial commitments has just arrived at her second job and misses out on the documentary (and the relaxation). Later in the week, when the two of you meet for a drink and your friend is ignorant of recent emission figures, what kind of intellectual or moral superiority is really justified on your part?"

Robinson argues that the pursuit of knowledge, and therefore, one's attitude towards knowledge acquisition is what matters. As he points out, "This example is designed to show that knowledge of the truth might very well have nothing to do with our own efforts or character. Many are born into severe poverty with a slim chance at a good education, and others grow up in religious or social communities that prohibit certain lines of enquiry...At the opposite end of the scale, some are effectively handed the truth about some matter as if it were a mint on their pillow, pleasantly materializing and not a big deal. Pride in this mere knowledge of the truth ignores the way in which some people come to possess it without any care or effort, and the way that others strive relentlessly against the odds for it and still miss out."

So, what would be the right attitude towards knowledge acquisition? Robinson highlights these epistemic virtues:

1. Intellectual humility = a willingness to be wrong
2. Intellectual courage = to pursue truths that make us uncomfortable
3. Open mindedness = to contemplate all side of an argument, limiting preconceptions
4. Curiosity = to be continually seeking

Robinson thinks the one who inhabits these epistemic virtues has a better relationship to the truth than the one who merely has knowledge given to them.

I am curious about what others think. Is one's attitude towards knowledge acquisition of more value than simply knowing? Does it matter how one comes to know something? What do you think about Robinson's "epistemic virtues"? For Christians, are they commensurate with Christian faith? Why, or why not? I am also curious what atheists, agnostics, and seekers think as well.

What do you think of virtue in terms of how people use what they know in relation to others? CF is such an interesting space to observe how people handle what they "know" and how they treat others who disagree. Sometimes (too many times?), we see "knowledge" wielded like a sledge-hammer instead of a gift worth pursuing. I am inclined to think that those who inhabit the above epistemic virtues will approach conversations differently than those who simply "know." But, I could be wrong.

Would you rather have a fish or know how to fish? | Aeon Ideas

Four of the qualities needed to be critical thinker.

grasping the after wind · Feb 27, 2020

If one has the wrong attitude in knowledge acquisition then one may be fooling oneself into thinking that what they have is knowledge when it may in reality be misinformation. In the example given by the OP, one hears a fact on climate change from a documentary on television. If one simply accepts that the information given is indeed a fact , one is not thinking critically. One needs to do more than just assume a tv documentary is authoritative. In fact the woman, too busy to be home watching tv so not seeing the documentary, might be better informed just by not having taken a piece of misinformation as factual.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

Josheb said:
Jonny Robinson is arguing a false dichotomy.

I think I see what you mean. Instead of "Is better to know or to seek to know?" I could be that one both knows and seeks to know. Is that what you mean?

So, what do you think of his suggested epistemic virtues? Are they helpful, not so helpful, complete nonsense? Should Jonny Robinson just keep his day job?

variant · Feb 27, 2020

It's not a question of either or here.

Knowledge is always going to be of more value than seeking that same knowledge.

The thing that's great about knowledge is that it then gives you a stepping stone to the next set of things you can then seek to know.

So, those people who value knowledge should value both, and to use one to lead to the other.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

grasping the after wind said:
If one simply accepts that the information given is indeed a fact , one is not thinking critically. One needs to do more than just assume a tv documentary is authoritative. In fact the woman, too busy to be home watching tv so not seeing the documentary, might be better informed just by not having taken a piece of misinformation as factual.

That's a good point. In the example, Robinson simply assumes the one who watched the documentary has a piece of knowledge, however easily acquired.

So, as a Christian, you don't see any conflict between the faith and his list of epistemic virtues?

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

variant said:
The thing that's great about knowledge is that it then gives you a stepping stone to the next set of things you can use it to seek to know.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but it makes sense that what you know is of more value than seeking to know that same thing.

What do you think about the so-called epistemic virtues he listed? The way you framed your response makes it seem like once you know something it is settled and you move on, based on what you know, to learn more. I may be reading him wrong, but Robinson's virtues of Intellectual Humility and Curiosity make things seem a bit less settled, like one should not be too confident in what they think they know.

variant · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
I hadn't thought about it that way, but it makes sense that what you know is of more value than seeking to know that same thing.

What do you think about the so-called epistemic virtues he listed? The way you framed your response makes it seem like once you know something it is settled and you move on, based on what you know, to learn more.

My response has to do with my own version of epistemology so it may not be fungible. I define knowledge as the ability to make predictions and effect objective changes according to your wishes and values.

Thus, having knowledge allows you to seek more knowledge, that's how you tell you have knowledge, it both allows you to make true predictions, and it allows you to build things and change the world around you.

Theory is tested with practice and knowledge allows you to practice, and to form better theory. So, knowledge should expand your power to obtain knowledge. That's part of what it is.

If what you are calling knowledge doesn't do this it probably isn't knowledge.

I may be reading him wrong, but Robinson's virtues of Intellectual Humility and Curiosity make things seem a bit less settled, like one should not be too confident in what they think they know.

Right, we shouldn't be confident, we should be relentlessly testing, and trying to put what we call knowledge into practice, and using such practice to obtain more and better knowledge.

It's the things you don't know that are unpredictable. It is those things that will stifle your designs and your desires.

I don't see anything wrong with Robinson's values, or any real conflict with my own. I think that the process of trying to obtain and practice knowledge makes people humble because it is exceedingly difficult.

What we should object to is people obtaining facts merely to lord them over one another who never really work toward anything substantial in the real world. That and any other person claiming expertise that they don't demonstrate.

grasping the after wind · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
That's a good point. In the example, Robinson simply assumes the one who watched the documentary has a piece of knowledge, however easily acquired.

So, as a Christian, you don't see any conflict between the faith and his list of epistemic virtues?

No. I don't. As a matter of fact I would I would like to apply those four to all the aspects of faith as well as to knowledge . The only difference being that a thing of faith must at some time be taken on faith alone whereas what purports to be knowledge should never be. What one decides to take on faith alone however can be examined using the same attitudes described above. In all instances though, one must start with some kind(s) of assumption(s) that one believes to be self evident. There will always be disagreement on some of those assumptions.

public hermit · Feb 27, 2020

grasping the after wind said:
In all instances though, one must start with some kind(s) of assumption(s) that one believes to be self evident. There will always be disagreement on some of those assumptions.

Agreed. It seems to me, this area of starting assumptions is one area where not only some disagree, but some may adamantly insist they have no starting assumptions. At least, that's how some folks talk, maybe they would admit it if backed in a corner, so to speak.

zippy2006 · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
What do you think about Robinson's "epistemic virtues"?

There are a lot of aspects to this, but let me just cherry pick a few sentences from the article:

Article said:
Would you rather have a fish or know how to fish? (...) Split into two discrete categories, then, we should prefer seeking to knowing.

I don't think knowledge can properly be treated as an object like a fish. In this case, the person who catches the fish and the person who is given the fish aren't going to be eating the same lunch. I think what we have is basically a conflation of facts or information with knowledge. Memorizing a bit of information you heard on the television is not knowledge properly speaking.

I think lots of Robinson's intuitions are right, but I think his conclusion is off. The whole idea that truth and knowledge are ends in themselves doesn't make much sense in the case of the fellow distractedly watching a documentary after work and grasping onto some fact about climate change.

grasping the after wind · Feb 27, 2020

public hermit said:
Agreed. It seems to me, this area of starting assumptions is one area where not only some disagree, but some may adamantly insist they have no starting assumptions. At least, that's how some folks talk, maybe they would admit it if backed in a corner, so to speak.

Do they not admit they assume that they exist? I think almost everyone assumes that the five senses we have, generally, but not always, give us valid information about the physical world.

Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

social troglodyte

Everything You say is Life to me

social troglodyte

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

social troglodyte

Everything You say is Life to me

social troglodyte

Christian

That's grasping after the wind

That's grasping after the wind

social troglodyte

Happy Cat

social troglodyte

social troglodyte

Happy Cat

That's grasping after the wind

social troglodyte

Dragonsworn

That's grasping after the wind

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency