Personal Epistemology

[RDKirk]

I've been thinking on and off for a while about how and why I accept certain things as true, or not...or just leave in what I call "epistemological abeyance." From my military training, I've learned to accept "epistemological abeyance" without stress. But it appears that ability is rare.

It seems like most people have to make a hard determination--true or untrue, believe or disbelieve--about everything, even things that are irrelevant in any way.

We had some rules of thumb in military intelligence analysis. One, which is known in other places, was "Never fall in love with your own hypothesis." The problem with being in love with a particular hypothesis is that love blinds you to the hypothesis that the data really points to. That's why we had another rule of thumb: "Prove all hypotheses." Put the data you have against every hypothesis you have and go with the one that the data best fits. But don't fall in love with it, because additional data may point elsewhere.

I had one commander who instructed me, "Tell me what you know. Then tell me what you think. Make sure you tell me the difference." That meant I had to make a conscious distinction between what I really knew and what I only thought. That meant I had to ponder: What do I really know...and how do I know it's a fact?

This wasn't just armchair theory in the military intelligence business. War plans and tactical operations, men going into real danger, killing people and breaking things, based on what I assured them was true. Men might not come back home, or they might kill the wrong people and break the wrong things if I was wrong. I'm a conscientious guy...that responsibility weighed on me. One of my jobs was to tell the Air Force where to place bomb craters, and I'd seen too many craters on apartment buildings and villages in my time.

All of my assertions had "reliability" statements attached: Confirmed, Probable, or Possible. I had to think about that: Do I really know this is true? I'm betting people's lives on this. To a certain extent, there was no room in my job for "epistemological abeyance." I couldn't just grin sheepishly at the operators during a pre-mission briefing and just say, "Sheesh, beats me, guys!" Sometimes, though, I had to say, "I don't know, but this is what I think." I had to point out what was only probable or even what was only possible. Operators didn't like that, though. They didn't like that at all.

But being in situations in which "epistemological abeyance" was impossible also made me realize the situations in which "epistemological abeyance" was not only possible but actually reflected the truth. Some things are truly not for certain. Some things are not knowable. (For example, exactly where will Vladimir Putin be at 0200hrs Zulu on July 16, 2027? That's not knowable. Not even Putin knows. Arguing about it today is absurd.)

And rather than feeling bad about things I didn't know that I could determine I didn't need to know...It was kind of like a mental vacation to have things I didn't know for certain and didn't need to know for certain.

It became a relief to identify whole areas of things I didn't need to know. Whew. That didn't mean I didn't have any curiosity about them...only that it wasn't an imperative that I take a stand on that hill and die for it. I could identify whole areas of life...most areas of life, in fact....that fell unto the category of "Not a hill I'd die on."

And even when it involves something that I arguably do need to know, unless I have to brief men going into that mission...I don't need to make any hard and fast determinations right now about what is true and what is untrue. I can enjoy "epistemological abeyance" until enough information actually comes in.

 

[durangodawood]

I've been thinking on and off for a while about how and why I accept certain things as true, or not...or just leave in what I call "epistemological abeyance." From my military training, I've learned to accept "epistemological abeyance" without stress. But it appears that ability is rare.....

Im trying to imagine the first humans or human ancestors capable of conceiving the question "why am I here?" and getting no reply back from the world - to their extreme dismay. The rush to fill that void with stories and frameworks of meaning was probably pretty desperate, if I can judge by the inability of people today to sit comfortably in not-knowing.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"epistemological abeyance." It seems like most people have to make a hard determination--true or untrue, believe or disbelieve--about everything, even things that are irrelevant in any way.

Yes, I am not sure why that is. We actually argue bitterly about things no one really knows, or for that matter, needs to know.

 

[Chesterton]

Im trying to imagine the first humans or human ancestors capable of conceiving the question "why am I here?" and getting no reply back from the world - to their extreme dismay. The rush to fill that void with stories and frameworks of meaning was probably pretty desperate, if I can judge by the inability of people today to sit comfortably in not-knowing.

How do you know they got no reply?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, I am not sure why that is. We actually argue bitterly about things no one really knows, or for that matter, needs to know.

I got a call today from someone taking a consumer survey. I tried to cut her short by telling her I had no opinions. She said that everyone has opinions. We got into a very heated argument. In my opinion, I won.

 

[durangodawood]

How do you know they got no reply?

I dont know that. Its just part of the scenario I'm imagining.

 

[Chesterton]

I dont know that. Its just part of the scenario I'm imagining.

Fair enough.

 

[Veni]

Proverbs 2

 

[Estrid]

I've been thinking on and off for a while about how and why I accept certain things as true, or not...or just leave in what I call "epistemological abeyance." From my military training, I've learned to accept "epistemological abeyance" without stress. But it appears that ability is rare.

It seems like most people have to make a hard determination--true or untrue, believe or disbelieve--about everything, even things that are irrelevant in any way.

We had some rules of thumb in military intelligence analysis. One, which is known in other places, was "Never fall in love with your own hypothesis." The problem with being in love with a particular hypothesis is that love blinds you to the hypothesis that the data really points to. That's why we had another rule of thumb: "Prove all hypotheses." Put the data you have against every hypothesis you have and go with the one that the data best fits. But don't fall in love with it, because additional data may point elsewhere.

I had one commander who instructed me, "Tell me what you know. Then tell me what you think. Make sure you tell me the difference." That meant I had to make a conscious distinction between what I really knew and what I only thought. That meant I had to ponder: What do I really know...and how do I know it's a fact?

This wasn't just armchair theory in the military intelligence business. War plans and tactical operations, men going into real danger, killing people and breaking things, based on what I assured them was true. Men might not come back home, or they might kill the wrong people and break the wrong things if I was wrong. I'm a conscientious guy...that responsibility weighed on me. One of my jobs was to tell the Air Force where to place bomb craters, and I'd seen too many craters on apartment buildings and villages in my time.

All of my assertions had "reliability" statements attached: Confirmed, Probable, or Possible. I had to think about that: Do I really know this is true? I'm betting people's lives on this. To a certain extent, there was no room in my job for "epistemological abeyance." I couldn't just grin sheepishly at the operators during a pre-mission briefing and just say, "Sheesh, beats me, guys!" Sometimes, though, I had to say, "I don't know, but this is what I think." I had to point out what was only probable or even what was only possible. Operators didn't like that, though. They didn't like that at all.

But being in situations in which "epistemological abeyance" was impossible also made me realize the situations in which "epistemological abeyance" was not only possible but actually reflected the truth. Some things are truly not for certain. Some things are not knowable. (For example, exactly where will Vladimir Putin be at 0200hrs Zulu on July 16, 2027? That's not knowable. Not even Putin knows. Arguing about it today is absurd.)

And rather than feeling bad about things I didn't know that I could determine I didn't need to know...It was kind of like a mental vacation to have things I didn't know for certain and didn't need to know for certain.

It became a relief to identify whole areas of things I didn't need to know. Whew. That didn't mean I didn't have any curiosity about them...only that it wasn't an imperative that I take a stand on that hill and die for it. I could identify whole areas of life...most areas of life, in fact....that fell unto the category of "Not a hill I'd die on."

And even when it involves something that I arguably do need to know, unless I have to brief men going into that mission...I don't need to make any hard and fast determinations right now about what is true and what is untrue. I can enjoy "epistemological abeyance" until enough information actually comes in.

It's how scidntists have to think,
too. It's a matter of intellectual
integrity.
It is the difference between progress
and confusion, taking wrong paths
to nowhere
Between losing your job and being a good scientist.
It can also be life or death,

 

[Yttrium]

I've been thinking on and off for a while about how and why I accept certain things as true, or not...or just leave in what I call "epistemological abeyance." From my military training, I've learned to accept "epistemological abeyance" without stress. But it appears that ability is rare.

It seems like most people have to make a hard determination--true or untrue, believe or disbelieve--about everything, even things that are irrelevant in any way.

I know that I exist. I'm flexible on everything else.

I'll accept many things as true-for-all-intents-and-purposes. That is, I recognize that my perceptions can be flawed, my information incomplete, and my judgements can be faulty, but I might as well treat those things as true for the time being, just because they're working out okay for me for now. They make sense in context, and I don't see any logical contradictions in them. I'll adjust what I accept as true-ish as more information becomes available.

I don't jump to conclusions on anything. If I hear something interesting in the news, I don't assume it's reliable information. I'll check around other sources to find information that supports or conflicts with the news and try to determine what's most likely.

No belief system, no personal philosophy on life, the universe and everything. But because this isn't a personal philosophy, I don't expect anyone else to try to take my approach. People are convinced of things or they aren't, depending on their own cognitive abilities, and forming quick conclusions has its advantages. My cognitive abilities don't let me be convinced of anything besides my own existence, at least not so far. No faith for me.

I don't make hard determinations. Only soft ones.

 

[zippy2006]

It seems like most people have to make a hard determination--true or untrue, believe or disbelieve--about everything, even things that are irrelevant in any way.

Our world really struggles with overconfident beliefs.

It happens in science as often as anywhere else. Take Evolution, for example. Realistically, what is the margin of error regarding claims about events that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago? It is incredibly high. Unbelievably high. And yet we take evolutionary claims to be facts possessing the highest level of certitude. It's mind-blowing how confused this is, but it all has to do with polemics and debates surrounding the issue. One can accept that something (like Evolution) is the best hypothesis, while simultaneously admitting that that hypothesis is exceptionally weak, and that we should not build every aspect of our life upon the presumption of its veracity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our world really struggles with overconfident beliefs.

It happens in science as often as anywhere else. Take Evolution, for example. Realistically, what is the margin of error regarding claims about events that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago? It is incredibly high. Unbelievably high. And yet we take evolutionary claims to be facts possessing the highest level of certitude. It's mind-blowing how confused this is, but it all has to do with polemics and debates surrounding the issue. One can accept that something (like Evolution) is the best hypothesis, while simultaneously admitting that that hypothesis is exceptionally weak, and that we should not build every aspect of our life upon the presumption of its veracity.

And even if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution isn't really all that weak, it's still not a solid reason to drop kick the Bible into the gutter.

My hypothesis is that it is bad philosophies of life, like that of Hugh Hefner, which mainly drive the skeptical, atheistic, liberated, even solitary Nietzschean style composure we see so evident today where epistemology is concerned.

 

[zippy2006]

And even if it turns out that the Theory of Evolution isn't really all that weak, it's still not a solid reason to drop kick the Bible into the gutter.

That's fair. While we're on the topic, I see Evolution as the new origins myth, a new etiology for humanity, answering the question posed above, "Why are we here?" I think the moral consequences have been disastrous, and are only beginning to take shape. (And at this point we could enter into arguments about whether things like eugenics or Social Darwinism are necessarily connected with the scientific theory.) In any case, at the end of the day I think it simply needs to be recognized that our knowledge of what occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago is not as accurate as we wish it to be. "Epistemological abeyance" is required.

My hypothesis is that it is bad philosophies of life, like that of Hugh Hefner, which mainly drive the skeptical, atheistic, liberated, even solitary Nietzschean style composure we see so evident today where epistemology is concerned.

Yes, I think there's a lot to that. I think an urge to "break out of the mold" and "think for yourself" has resulted in the justification of a lot of strange theories and opinions. Kant's "Sapere aude" cannot but help come to mind.

 

[RDKirk]

My hypothesis is that it is bad philosophies of life, like that of Hugh Hefner, which mainly drive the skeptical, atheistic, liberated, even solitary Nietzschean style composure we see so evident today where epistemology is concerned.

What is a "bad" philosophy of life, though?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is a "bad" philosophy of life, though?

On a general scale, a "bad" philosophy of life is one that, in due time, brings about social dissolution, psychological dysfunction, political delusion, false hope, epistemic over-confidence and/or perhaps even outright bigotry, all the while parading itself along upon the world stage as the latest of fashionable appraisals of human life, promising to enlighten a person and bring him to a state of Social Stability or Solidarity, Personal Liberation and Self-Actualization, in all of the most relevant details of life. (Communism, Naziism, and Hedonism are just three philosophies that fit this bill---others, as I'm sure you already know, can be all too easily cited as well.)

It should probably go without mentioning here that from a Christian position, a "bad" philosophy of life is also one which offers a diversion away from Jesus Christ as Sole Savior and Lord of the World, possibly even denying that He, and He alone, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's fair. While we're on the topic, I see Evolution as the new origins myth, a new etiology for humanity, answering the question posed above, "Why are we here?" I think the moral consequences have been disastrous, and are only beginning to take shape. (And at this point we could enter into arguments about whether things like eugenics or Social Darwinism are necessarily connected with the scientific theory.) In any case, at the end of the day I think it simply needs to be recognized that our knowledge of what occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago is not as accurate as we wish it to be. "Epistemological abeyance" is required.

Well, if you want to see Evolution as a "new origins myth," that's fine by me. While I find it interesting to study, I'm personally not invested in it since I'm an Existentialist and have other ultimate concerns. However, I don't think the Theory of Evolution is a myth; but whatever it is, I don't think it's a theory that is supposed to present an insistence that it has all of the details of "origins" spelled out for all time ... for anything. For it to do so, or more precisely, for any one evolutionist to think that it does would be for him to overstep his epistemic justifications and begin to commit epistemic tresspassing.

For those atheistic scientists who infuse their scientific praxis with Philosophical Naturalism rather than Methodological Naturalism, I'm sure that for them, evolution is assessed as the best explanation of all explanations for "origins." But from within mainstream science, I think we know better than that. This is why the notion of "provisional truth" exists within the fields of science.

As for the issues of eugenics and Social Darwinism, those are unfortunate false philosophical leads among earlier evolutionary theorists, all of which should have been abandoned long ago, especially after all that was learned in reflection upon the ideological fallout and international ramifications which clearly transpired in and during World War 2.

Yes, I think there's a lot to that. I think an urge to "break out of the mold" and "think for yourself" has resulted in the justification of a lot of strange theories and opinions. Kant's "Sapere aude" cannot but help come to mind.

That is true to some extent. But there are aspects of critical appraisals that can be ecclectically collected, revised and collated from various philosophers or other thinkers (scientists, theologians, etc.) and used to the benefit of both mankind and the furtherance of the Christian faith (research in genetics being one such domain).

So, while the Enlightement's push of Sapere aude could be seen as an omen of epistemic errors yet to come, in an almost Promethean fashion, none of that in and of itself has to militate against valuing the act of thinking for one's self over and against long held ideologies of the establishment. This can particularly be the case if the establishment --- whichever establishment --- can be in error on the whole on this or that detail, however large or small it may be, of social, economic, political, and sometimes, spiritual life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I am not sure why that is. We actually argue bitterly about things no one really knows, or for that matter, needs to know.

Yes, it does seem rather fruitless much of the time, doesn't it?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, if you want to see Evolution as a "new origins myth," that's fine by me. I don't think the Theory of Evolution is a myth, especially not upon the issue of "origins"... of anything.

For those atheistic scientists who ponder over and insist upon infusing their scientific praxis with Philosophical Naturalism rather than Methodological Naturalism, I'm sure that for them, evolution is assessed as the supposed explanation of all explanations for "origins." But from within mainstream science, I think we know better than that.

As for the issues of eugenics and Social Darwinism, those are unfortunate false philosophical leads among earlier evolutionary theorists, all of which should have been abandoned long ago, especially after the ideological fallout and ramifications of everything that clearly transpired in and during World War 2.

Myths occur at a cultural level, not a scientific level. If a culture has come to conceive of its origins and its meaning in predominantly evolutionary terms, then I would say it has adopted an evolutionary origins myth. Such then forms the etiology and self-understanding of the people.* By and large, I think this is happening. Evolution is becoming our sole anthropological lens.

(I am going to leave the questions of eugenics and Social Darwinism for another thread.)

That is true to some extent. But there are aspects of critical appraisals that can be ecclectically collected, revised and collated from various philosophers and used to the benefit of both mankind and the furtherance of the Christian faith (research in genetics being one such domain).

So, while the Enlightements push of Sapere aude could be seen as an omen of epistemic errors yet to come, in an almost Promethean fashion, none of that in and of itself has to militate against valuing the act of thinking for one's self over and against long held ideologies of the establishment. This can particularly be the case if the establishment --- whichever establishment --- can be in error on the whole on this or that detail, however large or small it may be, of social, economic, political, and sometimes, spiritual life.

I am mostly thinking at a macro level, looking at the way these things have affected the culture and the zeitgeist. I agree that there is legitimacy at a micro level. Errors accruing at the macro level almost always stem from just causes taken too far. For example, "Communism, Naziism, and Hedonism," all stem from grains of truth that wreak cultural havoc when expressed in that particular manner.

* What is being abandoned is the Genesis myth which formerly served the same function.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Myths occur at a cultural level, not a scientific level. If a culture has come to conceive of its origins and its meaning in predominantly evolutionary terms, then I would say it has adopted an evolutionary origins myth. Such then forms the etiology and self-understanding of the people.* By and large, I think this is happening. Evolution is becoming our sole anthropological lens.

(I am going to leave the questions of eugenics and Social Darwinism for another thread.)

Yes, I suppose you're right on that point. From a social or cultural level, I can agree with you that evolution has become a sort of neo-myth, one bandied about by anti-Christian polemicists, causing it to metastasize psychologically among the mass population as a one-size-fits-all meme to, in the short order befitting the typical 10 second attention span, explain all of the past, present, and the future. This neo-myth is a sad parody of the scientific theory of evolution.

In line with what you're stating, we see the popular culture---like comic book style magical thinking---drawing its outlook upon life from all that purports to be scientific and it then spins the story into something the mass public is willing to consume. This popular spin "memes" its way through the populace without too much counter reflection because most won't read (or hear) the sort of extended, intensive scientific and philosophical, even theological, treatments that you and I are willing to engage with and scrutinize.

Like I said, it's sad.

I am mostly thinking at a macro level, looking at the way these things have affected the culture and the zeitgeist. I agree that there is legitimacy at a micro level. Errors accruing at the macro level almost always stem from just causes taken too far. For example, "Communism, Naziism, and Hedonism," all stem from grains of truth that wreak cultural havoc when expressed in that particular manner.

Yes, I agree.

* What is being abandoned is the Genesis myth which formerly served the same function.

Well, that's true too. And, for the purposes of this thread, where epistemological concerns are relevant, we both know there are multiple epistemic reasons as to why this is happening.