Epistemology

Epistemology is a branch of Philosophy dealing with the nature, origin and scope of Knowledge and Beliefs, how we come to have them, and methods of obtaining them. Epistemology asks about the ultimate justification and rationality of what we know, as well other “epistemic” features of Belief. “How do we know anything?” “What do we know when we know something?” These basic questions are not as simple-minded as they sound, and they challenge our beliefs to answer them clearly. Inherent to the study of Epistemology is the examination of Truth, how claims are true, and whether there is just one “Truth”. Epistemology also includes specialization in the Philosophy of Mind, and its specialization in the Philosophy of Perception.

The Nature of Belief

Because all of us have epistemological beliefs, even if unconsciously, we thinking beings cannot truly understand and analyze our ideas without first having a system to accept and process them. We begin with rudimentary and undeveloped epistemological processes, but those who study Philosophy and related disciplines can sometimes recognize more quickly how epistemological systems work. Philosophers and scientists can and do develop their own Epistemology from new discoveries.

Many of our beliefs have positive epistemological features, and many beliefs are quite rational and “justified”. However, most of us, at least in some moments, are not content with being merely rational, because even a rational belief can be false. One can be careful and logical in forming a belief, remain rational in holding the belief, but still be wrong when the belief is false. Arguably, our ultimate ambition is to believe the Truth, to put it simply, but in the press of the realities before us in the real world, the epistemological features of belief require much more expression than simple right-or-wrong duality. The questions then become, at what point our belief is true, to what extent it is true, and for how long it is true.

One wonders how we can be sure any beliefs are true. Are there any guarantees available, we might ask? Some criteria can be used in order to decide on the truth of our beliefs, and with Logic, we can base our beliefs on Observation and Experiment, conscientiously answering objections found in Evidence, then pouring the results back into our formulations. Belief is rational, and possibly true, when it follows these basic guidelines. Epistemology and Logic, as forms of Rationality, provide indicators of Truth. If our beliefs are rational, then they are at least probably true. At the very least, the rationality of a belief gives us reason to think the belief is true.

Traditional and New Approaches

Philosophers generally agree that we have the capacity to think of questions which seem to be unanswerable. For instance, “Is there a beginning or end to Time?”, “Is there a Supreme Being?”, “Is there a Reality beyond what we can sense or detect?” Such questions are considered Transcendental, because they go beyond the limits of human Reason, beyond all Inquiry, and even beyond all Evidence, as Immanuel Kant argued.^[1] The two major styles in Modern Philosophy leading up to Kant may prove useful in the basic categorizing of trends throughout the history of Epistemology:

• Continental Rationalism held there are innate ideas not found in experience. These ideas exist independently of any experience we may have, and may in some way derive from the very structure of the Human Mind, or they may exist independently of any mind. If they exist independently, they may be understood by the Human Mind once it reaches a necessary degree of sophistication.^[2]
• British Empiricism denied there are any concepts which exist prior to experience. All knowledge is a product of active human learning, based upon perception and interaction. Perception, however, may cause concern, since illusions, misunderstandings, and even hallucinations prove that our perception does not always depict the World as it really is.^[3]

Kant joined the two views in his Transcendental Idealism, arguing that we certainly do have self-generated (“synthetic”) knowledge we apply prior to particular experiences (a priori), while we also formulate knowledge based on experience (a posteriori). Kant held that our synthetic a priori knowledge is something we deploy every day constantly, as generated within the Mind and used to process new empirical experiences. An example is when driving down a road we've never driven before. We make use of all kinds of synthetic a priori ideas we've formed and then bring to bear on the relatively new experience, such as Time and Distance, but also how road signs are used, and even how the operation of the car works, because we had not previously seen those signs, or driven the car in the next few miles, if you will. Another fun and effective example is to ask a class of students to exchange their textbooks with one another and then open them to a certain page number. The students have no prior experience of their classmate's book, despite it being part of a large print run, and yet they find the page every time, because they have formed a synthetic a priori principle that their classmate's book will be the same as their own. In this way, we constantly project how future moments will play out based on those we have already experienced and formed concepts about. This “Copernican Revolution”, as Kant called it, brought together the otherwise disparate schools thereafter. Yet, consider these contrasting approaches in Epistemology:

• Foundationalism holds there are basic beliefs in which we can be certain, and we can also be confident in other beliefs rigorously derived from these. An example is René Descartes' cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), by which he meant it is impossible to doubt one's own Existence. Whether our observation of our own mental activity is fundamentally different or more reliable than other observations is still in question. The difficulty of Foundationalism is that no set of basic beliefs proposed for it are trivial.^[4]
• Coherentism holds we are more justified in beliefs if they form a coherent whole with our other beliefs. Because Foundational beliefs are rather limiting, Coherentism allows us to create a far richer “web of belief”. However, the problem is that a set of beliefs can be internally consistent but still reflect poorly on the actual world. As the saying goes, two drunken sailors holding each other up may not be standing on solid ground themselves.^[5]

Recently, near the end of the Contemporary Philosophy period, Gilbert Harman and Susan Haack separately attempted to fuse Foundationalism and Coherentism as Kant had done before. Haack called it “Foundherentalism”, which accrues degrees of relative confidence to beliefs by mediating between the two approaches, establishing foundations for tautological beliefs, bringing in more esoteric beliefs through relative coherence. Newer philosophers also argue for combinations resembling Kantian Idealism or a mesh of Foundations and Coherence theories. It is clear, neither Rationalism nor Empiricism, Foundationalism nor Coherentism, work on their own to explain Knowledge or Belief, or how they are produced and maintained. It is also clear in today's world that we humans are not the only creatures on Earth who generate epistemic Knowledge, and it is hopelessly anthropomorphic to think so. It can even be illustrated that all lifeforms, even the simplest and least complex, even single-celled organisms, self-generate Knowledge.^[6]

This means Epistemology is far more fundamental study than batting around silly “S knows that P” formulations. One could even spend years contemplating things like the “Gettier Problem”, where Edmund Gettier argued that knowledge cannot be defined so easily as “justified true belief”, because we sometimes have justified true beliefs for the wrong reasons. This and other Anglo-Analytic and/or Positivist structures never seem to capture how a cat knows the food you bring her will be what she expects, how a plant prepares for Winter, or how a bacteria cell makes certain, albeit very limited, choices.

Scholarship by M.R.M. Parrott

Dynamism: Life: Volume II: Biological Chemistry and Epistemology Philosophy and Science Treatise ©2001, 2010-2011 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Jun 2011 Published by rimric press 0-9746106-5-8 | 978-0-9746106-5-8 216 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

Dynamism: Force: Volume I: Quantum Physics and Ontology Philosophy and Science Treatise ©2001-2004 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Feb 05/Jun 11 Published by rimric press 0-9746106-1-5 | 978-0-9746106-1-0 204 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Both Prefaces, Afterword, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

Synthetic A Priori: Philosophical Interviews Interviews, Discussion ©1998-1999 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: 99,00,02,08,11 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-6-1 | 978-0-9662635-6-5 232 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Both Prefaces, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

The Pure Critique of Reason: Kant and Subjectivity Philosophical Monograph ©1998-1999 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Oct 2002 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-5-3 | 978-0-9662635-5-8 148 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword, Notes on the Text Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

The Empiricism of Subjectivity: Deleuze and Consciousness Philosophical Monograph ©1996-1997 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Oct 2002 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-3-7 | 978-0-9662635-3-4 128 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

The Ethos of Modernity: Foucault and Enlightenment Philosophical Monograph ©1995-1996 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: May 96/Oct 02 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-2-9 | 978-0-9662635-2-7 160 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

The Generation of 'X': Philosophical Essays 1991-1995 Academic Papers ©1991-1995 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Oct 2002 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-0-2 | 978-0-9662635-0-3 160 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

Further Reading

• Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? from Analysis, Vol. 23, pp. 121-23 (1963) by Edmund Gettier, transcribed by Andrew Chruckry (Sept. 13, 1997).
• Susan Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology
• Gilbert Harman, Change in View
• Parrott, M.R.M., books on Epistemology and other areas, including “The Generation of X” (1995), “The Ethos of Modernity” (1996), “The Empiricism of Subjectivity” (1997), “The Pure Critique of Reason” (1999), “Synthetic A Priori” (1999), “Dynamism: Volume I: Force” (2005), “Dynamism: Volume II: Life” (2011)

References

1. Immanuel Kant, “Critique of Pure Reason” (1781).
2. See René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz..
3. See John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume.
4. See Aristotle, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant.
5. See Baruch Spinoza, G.W.F. Hegel, Immanuel Kant.
6. M.R.M. Parrott, “Dynamism: Volume II: Life” (2011).