How is knowledge aquired?

[WisdomTree]

The fundamental question asked in epistemology (or philosophy in general) is how we can know. Using the classical definition of knowledge: justified true belief, which of the three school of thoughts are correct?

Feel free to explain and/or argue against anything, including the definition itself as well as advocating for schools of thoughts that are not included here (cause there are heaps!).

 

[Resha Caner]

I voted for empiricism, but I'm going to be difficult about this. Sorry. You left out one category: revelation.

Even if you were to restrict this to what humans can do of themselves to acquire knowledge, I would probably vote for a combination of empiricism and rationalism.

 

[WisdomTree]

I voted for empiricism, but I'm going to be difficult about this. Sorry. You left out one category: revelation.

Even if you were to restrict this to what humans can do of themselves to acquire knowledge, I would probably vote for a combination of empiricism and rationalism.

Be difficult as you like, philosophy wouldn't be fun without it.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "revelation". I reckon it is part of empiricism as it is based on experience.

I made the poll difficult on purpose cause everyone will choose both reason and experience.

 

[Paradoxum]

I admit I don't know much about about epistemology.

Although I like the idea of Rationalism it seems that it is very hard to know when you have found truth through reason alone. So many philosophers have had so many philosophies and all thought they were right, but they can't all be right. Something can seem completely obvious, clear and distinct like "I think therefore I am", but nevertheless have problems.

Empiricism seems good, but science seems to give truth claims probabilities rather than saying this or that is the definite truth.

On the other hand the claims of certain probabilities seems to be truth claims or at least basic assumptions. Eg: 'There is X probability that the Sun is powered by fusion' seems to be a truth claim. Is it just an assumption that evidence is a reliable way of knowing the world or is it based on some a priori reasoning that tells us that evidence is a good way of understanding the world.

Honestly I have no idea and I am just blabbering. I think I am ok with perhaps not being able to say be know something, but still we need to decide what we can practically assume to be true. What basic assumptions we can make. Perhaps these basic assumptions are just innate.

So my answer is I don't know so I haven't voted.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I view rationalism and empiricism as a false dichotomy.

I prefer a synthetic epistemology that sees knowledge as a mental grasp of reality achieved through both reason and experience, or through reason as guided by the rational intuition we gain through life experience.

It's always both reason and experience, inextricably intertwined. For that reason, the extremes of rationalism and empiricism lead to crazy results.

So my vote is for the missing fourth option. I'm not an epistemological skeptic. I'm bullish on knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

The fundamental question asked in epistemology (or philosophy in general) is how we can know. Using the classical definition of knowledge: justified true belief, which of the three school of thoughts are correct?

Feel free to explain and/or argue against anything, including the definition itself as well as advocating for schools of thoughts that are not included here (cause there are heaps!).

Well, one problem is: This question (or better: any answer) is somewhat self-referential (How do we know which approach is correct?).

Regarding the definition: I have problems with the term "true belief". What is it supposed to refer to:
- That the belief conforms with reality?
- That the belief conforms with "truth"? (Which I find slightly misleading, because the term "truth" itself already describes a relation between a belief.)
- That the belief is truly (honestly) held?
- Something else?

Anyway, I can´t even fathom how either option 1 or option 2 can possibly be separated. To me, they seem to be the two legs we stand on.

 

[Johnnz]

By a variety of ways, some outside of the orbits of Post Enlightenment rationalism.

From a Christian perspective we would argue that mind alone is insufficient to adequately understand non physical reality Metaphysics), something of course which rationalism rejects as either non existent (it can't be proved) or unknowable (i.e an agnostic position).

Christians claim otherwise. There is a paradigm in the Eden story. Two trees, one representing life, the other the knowledge of good and evil. Fallen humanity lives from the latter, in the realm of moral legalism and rationalism, as in fact do many Christians. Traditional systematic theology and apologetics are based on that paradigm, self sufficient knowledge.

But the tree of life requires revelation, something beyond the natural capacity of the human mind. This is why Jesus never gave a systematic presentation in response to Pilate's question "What is truth?" but instead stated "I am Truth". Christian epistemology is based on three foundations, love, faith had hope, all relational terms founded in God's revelation to us supremely in Christ.
1 Cor 13:12-13 Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

John
NZ

This is not to decry science and genuine intellectual endeavour. But it does limit their sphere of authority. Rationalism demands proof, even of God, and is either agnostic or atheistic about the supernatural. Augustine understood this, picking up on Jesus' teaching when he said we must believe in order to know. This is true both of God and of another person. Some knowledge relies on relationship.

 

[Resha Caner]

Please elaborate on what you mean by "revelation". I reckon it is part of empiricism as it is based on experience.

Be careful there. I could argue that reasoning is an experience and therefore empirical. Once one heads down that road, everything becomes meaningless.

Revelation is where the one who knows tells the one who doesn't. It is most often used to mean what God has told us, but it could also mean a case where I tell you what I had for breakfast (a bagel and some OJ BTW).

Empiricism seems good, but science seems to give truth claims probabilities rather than saying this or that is the definite truth.

Maybe so, but we're talking about knowledge, not truth. And the definition was that it be "justified". If a scientist sets the goal that his data must match his theory to a 95% confidence level, and he achieves that, then he has justified that knowledge.

 

[Received]

What I've wondered: why can't reasoning be labeled a type of experience?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I've wondered: why can't reasoning be labeled a type of experience?

Who is saying that it isn't? One does experience one's reasoning to an extent (some of the process could be subconscious), although presumably the experience of one's reasoning isn't the point... it's the answers that reasoning leads to regarding a certain question, which is why rationalism is considered a separate approach from empiricism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

Even a priori knowledge relies upon previous experience; you have to have experienced the difference between squares and circles to come to the a priori conclusion that a square circle is impossible. Even the basic "knowledge" (e.g., reflexes, instincts, etc.) that are built into our genes are based upon previous experiences and interactions that our species has had over time. Therefore, I believe that all knowledge is fundamentally empirical.

 

[christ disciple]

Question? Is knowledge itself created or discovered? Sorry, if I seem to be a bit off topic, but I think it relates to the topic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Question? Is knowledge itself created or discovered? Sorry, if I seem to be a bit off topic, but I think it relates to the topic.

I'd say both in different respects.

Any item of knowledge is a discovery of some new truth about reality, but knowledge is also something constructed by our minds, e.g., using language, which is also constructed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[christ disciple]

I'd say both in different respects.

Any item of knowledge is a discovery of some new truth about reality, but knowledge is also something constructed by our minds, e.g., using language, which is also constructed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If created then what would be the fundamental building blocks?

If discovered then what would be the source?

 

[Received]

Even a priori knowledge relies upon previous experience; you have to have experienced the difference between squares and circles to come to the a priori conclusion that a square circle is impossible. Even the basic "knowledge" (e.g., reflexes, instincts, etc.) that are built into our genes are based upon previous experiences and interactions that our species has had over time. Therefore, I believe that all knowledge is fundamentally empirical.

I'm with this almost all the way. I think there is a place for reason as an innate ability, albeit the content of reason is fleshed out through experience.

Then you also have really basic philosophical problems which, while not quite being related to reason per se, are still intuitively ascertained by virtue of our given (i.e., non-experience-based) nature. You know, the external world, the existence of others, etc.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If created then what would be the fundamental building blocks?

Concepts, typically as expressed in language.

If discovered then what would be the source?

Reality, as grasped by a reasoning mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[christ disciple]

Concepts, typically as expressed in language.



Reality, as grasped by a reasoning mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Does knowldege precede the mind and language? Is it there to be discovered?

 

[Received]

You might say that mind mediates knowledge, which is "coded" by language.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does knowldege precede the mind and language? Is it there to be discovered?

Reality is prior to knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge of reality. So, it is reality that may precede the mind and language, not knowledge, which is constructed using the mind and language.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[christ disciple]

You might say that mind mediates knowledge, which is "coded" by language.

Ultimately did knowledge itself precede our existence?