Epistemology or "E did what to Imself?"

[Uber Genius]

Why a strange philosophical specialty known as "Epistemology," matters to everyone trying to discover what is true about their world.

Epistemology is the study of human understanding. That is it answers the question, "What can we call knowledge?" There are several differing views of the limits of human understanding and each view limits what can be labeled "Knowledge." I am starting this thread because often members are engaging one another with differing epistemic assumptions that are the root cause of the disagreement in their respective claims. Yet they make no progress in gaining understanding because epistemological differences are so foundational, they can't seem to address where their true differences lay.

This is a controversial subject and as such no matter what I would write in summary about the subject could be shown to be wanting by some expert at some school. Please be generous in that I am trying to open a rich dialog valuable to all at CF.

Since at least Socrates we have had discussions of what can be known and how it can be known or justified. There are various views ranging from we can know next to nothing about this world (Cartesian skepticism) including whether there is a real external world, or other minds (people), a real past (this world could have just popped into existence with the appearance of age), to fideism (that faith must be separate from reason).

I would like to ask participants to start to research this obscure field and develop their own account of how on can gain knowledge.

Here is a starter kit. Perhaps someone else could post somewhat of a range of epistemic positions link to help people identify what assumptions and entailments their epistemic positions makes.

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The account above suggests we have 5 ways of perceiving the world: Senses, Memory, Rationality, Testimony, Introspection.

Are there sources of knowledge you privilege over others?

Are there sources of knowledge you discount over others?

If we were to reason with induction, abduction or deduction, how would these 5 ways play a role? Would any be excluded from say scientific method? Religious inquiry?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... if I may be so bold, I'd at least like to say one thing on behalf of atheists here on CF: they no longer are telling me "epistemology" isn't relevant, like they were doing just a few years ago here.

So, while I know I'm still in dispute with various atheists about the how, the why and the wherefore of the epistemological 'inner workings' of the Christian Faith, at least I can see some philosophical progress (and learning?) has been made among them. And on that count, I applaud. It might be a two-clapper applause, but I'm still clapping anyway!

.... wow, the lights just went off! What happened?!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I've been a fan of it off an on ever since I was a kid and watched an Astronaut argue Phenomenology with a stellar destroying bomb (the movie Darkstar).

 

[Uber Genius]

... if I may be so bold, I'd at least like to say one thing on behalf of atheists here on CF: they no longer are telling me "epistemology" isn't relevant, like they were doing just a few years ago here.

So, while I know I'm still in dispute with various atheists about the how, the why and the wherefore of the epistemological 'inner workings' of the Christian Faith, at least I can see some philosophical progress (and learning?) has been made among them. And on that count, I applaud. It might be a two-clapper applause, but I'm still clapping anyway!

.... wow, the lights just went off! What happened?!

I have seen this as well.

In my personal conversations more than my engagement on social media, epistemic foundations are the most fruitful beginning. I have an advantage in that the set I run with have had the luxury and benefit of professional education and are tolerant of such discussions. As I move away from college professors, doctors, lawyers, I find that engaging the foundations of our worldview are less of a concern.

It allows me to start from a place we both agree, say like out of nothing, nothing comes. Now a Cartesian skeptic says, "Wait, that is just an evil daemon telling you that," and then the wheels come off.

 

[Uber Genius]

I've been a fan of it off an on ever since I was a kid and watched an Astronaut argue Phenomenology with a stellar destroying bomb (the movie Darkstar).

"What is your one purpose in life?"
"To explode of course"

We are off to a hilarious start on this thread.

Bravo.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have seen this as well.

In my personal conversations more than my engagement on social media, epistemic foundations are the most fruitful beginning. I have an advantage in that the set I run with have had the luxury and benefit of professional education and are tolerant of such discussions. As I move away from college professors, doctors, lawyers, I find that engaging the foundations of our worldview are less of a concern.

It allows me to start from a place we both agree, say like out of nothing, nothing comes. Now a Cartesian skeptic says, "Wait, that is just an evil daemon telling you that," and then the wheels come off.

I wonder if they'd care to (**ahem**) meditate on the fact that not even Descartes was really all that much of a Cartesian skeptic ... ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been a fan of it off an on ever since I was a kid and watched an Astronaut argue Phenomenology with a stellar destroying bomb (the movie Darkstar).

Suddenly, after seeing that clip, I'm feeling more hopeful ... ... I wonder what watching the whole movie might do for me?

 

[Uber Genius]

The epistemic foundation of my dog Rae Rae is one of "entitlement."

No, she does not claim her beliefs are true as a result of being a millennial, a la AOC. I grant that my dog has absolutely no justification regarding the external world whatsoever. Nevertheless she is able to chase cars without getting run over, knows which of several similar bags contains her food, is able to chase down rabbits, and accurately follow blood trails of injured deer for miles.

Are human abilities to engage the external world just a few hundred higher branches into the evolutionary tree? Which of the methods of understanding our world highlighted in the Stanford article above might be hard to explain naturalistically?

 

[Uber Genius]

I wonder if they'd care to (**ahem**) meditate on the fact that not even Descartes was really all that much of a Cartesian skeptic ... ?

Good point. But in fact, most people with advanced degrees have a very narrow focus, even in their specialty of law or medicine, of philosophy. I have run into professors of philosophy that were constantly making material misstatements about natural theological arguments that were elementary mistakes, because they had never actually engaged same while getting a PhD in Philosophy specializing in philosophy of science and not philosophy of religion. So I try to ask people about their specialty, helping them recognize that I'm aware that their expertise has limits.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

On this sort of thing I'm kind of a postmodernist. A term that is often demonized, oversimplified etc. by various pundits etc. But I am a Larry Wallist basically following the World View in Perl, the first postmodern computer language

And R.D. Laing "The Politics of Experience" was another biggy of my young college days.


But basically the notion is that our ideas of reality, are a model of reality but not literal reality. And that reality (for us) is "constructed" by our experience. Now this shouldn't be that controversial a notion, especially when it comes to cognitive psychology and therapy of the last few decades where people in general are likened to being "scientists"etc. but due to various radicals etc. postmodernism often tends to be equated with cultural Marxism, Solipsism, Relativism etc. when it can simply be understood of coming to terms with the limitations of various aspects of Modernism and the Enlightenment.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Quiz: What's Your Epistemology? Let's Find Out!

From this short quiz, You got: Post-Positivist

Multiple Choice Quiz

Passed

What's your epistemology?

Result: You are Jane Addams!

Self-quiz

Half right, got tired of reading.

Mini-Quiz: Epistemology: The Philosophy of Knowledge by Ron Kurtus - Succeed by Being Knowledgeable: School for Champions

Mini-Quiz: Epistemology: The Philosophy of Knowledge by Ron Kurtus - Succeed by Being Knowledgeable: School for Champions

Have fun with this one, it is more of a tutor

God is a knower and God’s knowledge includes ‘propositional’ knowledge. (Gen. 3:5; Luke 16:15; 1 Cor. 3:20)
God created all other knowers. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11)
We can obtain knowledge of God. (Jer. 31:34; John 14:7)
In fact, everyone has knowledge of God in a limited sense, even though that knowledge may be suppressed. (Rom. 1:18-23)
Knowledge of God is one of the most important goals of human life. (Jer. 31:34; John 17:3; Acts 17:24)
What a person can know about God, and about other closely related matters, depends in large measure on their spiritual state. (Ps. 82:5; Luke 10:21; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11-16; Eph. 4:17-18)
Our knowledge of God is necessarily limited. (Job 36:26; Isa. 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33)
God’s Word is a higher epistemic authority than human reason or intuition. (Prov. 3:5; Isa. 8:20; Jer. 23:29; John 10:35; 1 Cor. 1:25; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25)
One can know with a high degree of confidence that the message of the gospel is true. (Luke 1:4; Acts 2:36; Acts 17:31)
People of all levels of intellectual sophistication can have a saving knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. (Deut. 29:29; Luke 10:21; 1 Cor. 1:26-28)
There are objective truths: truths that are independent of human opinions and feelings. (Exod. 20:16; Prov. 12:17; John 8:44; 17:17; 19:35; Gal. 2:14; 2 Cor. 10:5)
There are culture-transcending truths that can be known by people from all cultures; not all knowledge is culture-relative. (Ezek. 38:23; 39:7; John 17:23; Acts 11:20; 19:10; 20:21; Rom. 15:8-13; 16:26)
There is a significant ethical dimension to human belief and knowledge. (Prov. 1:7; Matt. 22:36-38; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 10:31)
One can be morally culpable for failing to hold certain beliefs. (John 16:9; 2 Thess. 2:12; Heb. 3:19; 1 John 5:10)
It is possible to know some truths via sense experience. (Gen. 46:30; Luke 21:20, 30; John 3:11; 19:35)
It is possible to know some truths apart from sense experience. (Matt. 16:16-17; Luke 5:22)
It is possible to know some truths by direct divine revelation, apart from natural means. (Gen. 46:2-4; Ezek. 1:1; Dan. 7:1; Matt. 16:16-17; Rev. 1:9-11)
It is possible to know moral truths. (Isa. 51:7; Rom. 7:1)
It is possible to know future contingents. (Matt. 20:17-19; Mark 13:22-23; Luke 22:34; John 6:64)
Inductive knowledge based on sense experience is commonplace. (Matt. 16:1-3; 24:32)
Human testimony is an important source of knowledge. (Numbers 35:30; Luke 1:2; John 21:24)
At least some human knowledge is not dependent on human embodiment. (Luke 16:25; 23:42-43; Rev. 6:9-11)
Arguments a fortiori are a good form of reasoning. (Luke 11:13; 12:24; Rom. 11:12)
There is substantial continuity between divine reasoning and human reasoning. (Isa. 1:18)
It is possible and worthwhile for believers to reason with unbelievers about God, Jesus Christ, etc. (Acts 17:2; 17:16-34; 18:4; 18:19; 19:8-9)
A Biblical Epistemology?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Epistemology or "E did what to Imself?"
https://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/devo_7.pdf
Understanding Epistemological Presuppositions
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwi3892s2b3nAhUjma0KHTB4BzYQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

Somewhere out there is a quiz of do you think like Calvin, Augustine, Socrates, or whom --- I can not find it.

 

[public hermit]

Perhaps someone else could post somewhat of a range of epistemic positions link to help people identify what assumptions and entailments their epistemic positions makes.

Wiki does a nice job presenting different theories of justifications:

Theories of justification

• Foundationalism – Self-evident basic beliefs justify other non-basic beliefs.
• Coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
• Internalism – The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
• Externalism – Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
• Skepticism – A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge.
  • Academic skepticism – A school of skepticism which rejects the existence of truth and maintains that knowledge is impossible.
  • Pyrrhonian skepticism – A school of skepticism which emphasises suspension of belief to attain ataraxia (tranquility of mind).
• Minority viewpoints include:
  • Foundherentism – A combination of foundationalism and coherentism proposed by Susan Haack.
  • Infinitism – Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons, as proposed by Peter D. Klein

The links above don't work (apologies):
Outline of epistemology - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wiki does a nice job presenting different theories of justifications:

Theories of justification

• Foundationalism – Self-evident basic beliefs justify other non-basic beliefs.
• Coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
• Internalism – The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
• Externalism – Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
• Skepticism – A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge.
  • Academic skepticism – A school of skepticism which rejects the existence of truth and maintains that knowledge is impossible.
  • Pyrrhonian skepticism – A school of skepticism which emphasises suspension of belief to attain ataraxia (tranquility of mind).
• Minority viewpoints include:
  • Foundherentism – A combination of foundationalism and coherentism proposed by Susan Haack.
  • Infinitism – Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons, as proposed by Peter D. Klein

The links above don't work (apologies):
Outline of epistemology - Wikipedia

Also, don't forget: Plantinga's 'Reliabilism' !

 

[public hermit]

Also, don't forget: Plantinga's 'Reliabilism' !

Is wiki not functioning properly?

 

[Uber Genius]

Wiki does a nice job presenting different theories of justifications:

Theories of justification

• Foundationalism – Self-evident basic beliefs justify other non-basic beliefs.
• Coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
• Internalism – The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
• Externalism – Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
• Skepticism – A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge.
  • Academic skepticism – A school of skepticism which rejects the existence of truth and maintains that knowledge is impossible.
  • Pyrrhonian skepticism – A school of skepticism which emphasises suspension of belief to attain ataraxia (tranquility of mind).
• Minority viewpoints include:
  • Foundherentism – A combination of foundationalism and coherentism proposed by Susan Haack.
  • Infinitism – Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons, as proposed by Peter D. Klein

The links above don't work (apologies):
Outline of epistemology - Wikipedia

one of the rare ones...wiki and "quality" don't go together very often.

I'm particularly surprised by the quality of Wikipedia's article on Reformed Epistemology. It was accurate. It is often misrepresented in philosophy blogs and chat rooms. I do not recommend Plantinga's books as they are incredibly technical. His trilogy on his view (Warrant: The Current Debate,[3] and Warrant and Proper Function.[7] The third in the series was Warranted Christian Belief,[8] published in 2000), has been a source of more dusting than reading in the last 20 years as far as my research is concerned.

 

[public hermit]

one of the rare ones...wiki and "quality" don't go together very often.

I'm particularly surprised by the quality of Wikipedia's article on Reformed Epistemology. It was accurate. It is often misrepresented in philosophy blogs and chat rooms. I do not recommend Plantinga's books as they are incredibly technical. His trilogy on his view (Warrant: The Current Debate,[3] and Warrant and Proper Function.[7] The third in the series was Warranted Christian Belief,[8] published in 2000), has been a source of more dusting than reading in the last 20 years as far as my research is concerned.

I've only read Warranted Christian Belief. I even read the smaller print that he suggested was only for philosophers!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is wiki not functioning properly?

... I just got done using it, actually. And I see now that further on down the Wiki page is a ..... whole long list of epistemic positions, including Reliabilism. YIKES! It's enough to make one just runaway into an Existential closet and hide.

 

[public hermit]

... I just got done using it, actually.

Wait, did you miss my Plantinga joke??

"functioning properly" as in "proper function"

 

[Uber Genius]

W

I've only read Warranted Christian Belief. I even read the smaller print that he suggested was only for philosophers!

I read warrant and proper function or tried... and couldn't get past his aversion to Chisholm. Couldn't quite understand it. He, Plantinga, held to some sort of coherentism until he decided it must be false. I got a little board with the deep interaction with epistemic models I had no interest in so I started skimming those sections. All-in-all, I needed a cliffnotes version of the trilogy and never found one. I certainly agree with his idea of Sensus Divinitatus, and that one not need any rational arguments to properly ground one's belief. This idea is a powerful one as the a posteriori experiences, and memories of same, are the scaffolding of most of our beliefs qua other persons such as our beliefs about our spouse, our friends, our parents, our children,etc.

Often I have arrested people's scientistic flourishes and defense of non-belief by doing a reductio ad absurdum and asking them to prove that there own grandmother had existed given she had died and all the records of her existence had disappeared and people whom had knew her personally had also died. Of course this approach mechanically reduces the data to one's own experience data. But brings to the fore how memory, introspection, even testimony often play important roles in forming what we take to be unquestionably true about the real world. Then I ask them why they use special pleading to produce a different epistemic standard in the case of religious beliefs.