Back to Top Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief.
The nature of epistemology Epistemology as a discipline Why should there be a discipline such as epistemology? Aristotle — bce provided the answer when he said that philosophy begins in a kind of wonder or puzzlement. Nearly all human beings wish to comprehend the world they live in, and many of them construct theories of various kinds to help them make sense of it.
|Meta-epistemological Skepticism - Philosophy - Oxford Bibliographies||The contemporary focus on skepticism tends toward skepticism about the external world, the thesis that knowledge of or justified belief about the external world is impossible. Meta-epistemological scepticism qua challenge is the template challenge associated with meta-epistemological skepticism that an intellectually satisfying explanation of how knowledge of the external world is possible or how justified belief about the external world is possible needs to meet certain desiderata.|
|Other Subject Areas||Many philosophers, as well as many people studying philosophy for the first time, have been struck by the seemingly indecisive nature of philosophical argumentation. For every argument there seems to be a counterargument, and for every position a counterposition.|
|An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.||References and Further Reading 1.|
Because many aspects of the world defy easy explanationhowever, most people are likely to cease their efforts at some point and to content themselves with whatever degree of understanding they have managed to achieve.
Unlike most people, philosophers are captivated—some would say obsessed—by the idea of understanding the world in the most general terms possible. Accordingly, they attempt to construct theories that are synoptic, descriptively accurate, explanatorily powerful, and in all other respects rationally defensible.
In doing so, they carry the process of inquiry further than other people tend to do, and this is what is meant by saying that they develop a philosophy about such matters. Like most people, epistemologists often begin their speculations with the assumption that they have a great deal of knowledge.
As they reflect upon what they presumably know, however, they discover that it is much less secure than they realized, and indeed they come to think that many of what had been their firmest beliefs are dubious or even false.
Two of those anomalies will be described in detail here in order to illustrate how they call into question common claims to knowledge about the world. Two epistemological problems Knowledge of the external world Most people have noticed that vision can play tricks. A straight stick submerged in water looks bent, though it is not; railroad tracks seem to converge in the distance, but they do not; and a page of English-language print reflected in a mirror cannot be read from left to right, though in all other circumstances it can.
Each of those phenomena is misleading in some way. Anyone who believes that the stick is bent, that the railroad tracks converge, and so on is mistaken about how the world really is. Although such anomalies may seem simple and unproblematic at first, deeper consideration of them shows that just the opposite is true.
How does one know that the stick is not really bent and that the tracks do not really converge? Suppose one says that one knows that the stick is not really bent because when it is removed from the water, one can see that it is straight. But does seeing a straight stick out of water provide a good reason for thinking that when it is in water, it is not bent?
Suppose one says that the tracks do not really converge because the train passes over them at the point where they seem to converge.
But how does one know that the wheels on the train do not converge at that point also? What justifies preferring some of those beliefs to others, especially when all of them are based upon what is seen?
What one sees is that the stick in water is bent and that the stick out of water is straight. Why, then, is the stick declared really to be straight?
Why, in effect, is priority given to one perception over another? One possible answer is to say that vision is not sufficient to give knowledge of how things are. But what justifies the belief that the sense of touch is more reliable than vision?
After all, touch gives rise to misperceptions just as vision does. For example, if a person chills one hand and warms the other and then puts both in a tub of lukewarm water, the water will feel warm to the cold hand and cold to the warm hand. Thus, the difficulty cannot be resolved by appealing to input from the other senses.
Another possible response would begin by granting that none of the senses is guaranteed to present things as they really are. The belief that the stick is really straight, therefore, must be justified on the basis of some other form of awareness, perhaps reason.
But why should reason be accepted as infallible? It is often used imperfectly, as when one forgets, miscalculates, or jumps to conclusions. Moreover, why should one trust reason if its conclusions run counter to those derived from sensation, considering that sense experience is obviously the basis of much of what is known about the world?
Clearly, there is a network of difficulties here, and one will have to think hard in order to arrive at a compelling defense of the apparently simple claim that the stick is truly straight.
A person who accepts this challenge will, in effect, be addressing the larger philosophical problem of knowledge of the external world. That problem consists of two issues: The other-minds problem Suppose a surgeon tells a patient who is about to undergo a knee operation that when he wakes up he will feel a sharp pain.
When the patient wakes up, the surgeon hears him groaning and contorting his face in certain ways. Although one is naturally inclined to say that the surgeon knows what the patient is feeling, there is a sense in which she does not know, because she is not feeling that kind of pain herself.
Unless she has undergone such an operation in the past, she cannot know what her patient feels.
Indeed, the situation is more complicated than that, for even if the surgeon has undergone such an operation, she cannot know that what she felt after her operation is the same sort of sensation as what her patient is feeling now.Much of epistemology has arisen either in defense of, or in opposition to, various forms of skepticism.
Indeed, one could classify various theories . Introduction. In epistemology, skepticism is the view that knowledge of (or justified belief about) something is impossible. The contemporary focus on skepticism tends toward skepticism about the external world, the thesis that knowledge of (or justified belief about) the external world is impossible.
Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified heartoftexashop.com analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief and heartoftexashop.com also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
It is essentially about issues having to do . Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge?
Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.
epistemology: Skepticism. Many philosophers, as well as many people studying philosophy for the first time, have been struck by the seemingly indecisive nature of philosophical argumentation.
For every argument there seems to be a counterargument, and for every position a counterposition.