Descriptions:
Video Description
What does it actually mean to know something? That question has been rattling around for over two thousand years, and this video from Academy of Ideas turns it into a friendly tour of epistemology — the study of knowledge itself. It walks through the old rivalry between trusting your senses and trusting your reason, introduces the classic ‘justified true belief’ definition, and reveals a surprising secret: every theory of knowledge begins in fear. From Aristotle to the mystery of a bat’s point of view, this is a clear-minded guide to how we separate truth from opinion.
Full Video Transcript
Introduction to epistemology.
At the beginning of Aristotle’s work Metaphysics, he states,
All men by nature desire to know.
But what does it mean to know?
This is one of the questions that is addressed by the field of epistemology,
and in this lecture we will introduce epistemology.
Specifically, we will examine the meanings of the terms epistemology and knowledge,
look at what it means to know,
examine some of the questions which epistemology addresses,
and discuss why such a field arose in the first place.
The term epistemology is derived from the Greek word episteme, which means knowledge, and the suffix ology, which signifies the doctrine or study of.
So by combining these two terms, it is apparent that the word epistemology means the doctrine or study of knowledge, but more commonly it is referred to as the theory of knowledge.
What would a theory of knowledge consist of?
Epistemology attempts to answer a number of fundamental questions.
questions. Some examples of these questions include, what is the nature of knowledge?
What are the obstacles to the attainment of knowledge? What can be known? And how does
knowledge differ from opinion or belief? Thus, when one is said to have an epistemology it
means that they have a theory which addresses such questions.
How is knowledge obtained? Traditionally, philosophers have distinguished two main methods
of knowledge acquisition. One way is through the senses or via one’s experience. I can,
example, examine a plant, and through the experience produced by my senses come to know
certain characteristics of it, such as its shape, size, smell, texture, and whether it
produces fruits or flowers. Those who believe that this is the main way people obtain knowledge
are called empiricists. However, as people have known for thousands of years, sometimes
the information given to us via our senses is deceiving. For example, our senses seem
to tell us the Earth is flat, but we now know such a belief to be false. So can our senses
always be trusted? Furthermore, some contemporary philosophers
have stressed that our bodies and sensory apparatus influence how we interpret the entirety
of reality outside of us. For example, the way the world looks to a bat is likely quite
different from the way it appears to us humans. Such speculation has led some to emphasize
the important influencing effect that our bodies, and the sensory equipment we have
evolved have on our pursuit of knowledge about the world. Such speculations and skepticisms
on the workings of our sensory apparatus have led some to suggest that there must be a way
to obtain knowledge which can overcome or correct the sometimes illusory nature of our
sense experience. Knowledge, it is posited, can also be obtained via the process of reasoning,
and those who stress this route of knowledge acquisition are called rationalists.
Even when people introduce epistemology, they do not take the time to examine what type
of knowledge the field of epistemology is concerned with, but it is important to take
the time to do this given that there is more than one type of knowledge.
Generally, epistemology has focused on what is called propositional knowledge, or knowledge
of facts.
Examples of this type of knowledge include statements such as, I know that a giraffe
has four legs, or I know that 3 times 30 equals 90.
Knowledge of facts, or propositional knowledge, can be contrasted to practical knowledge,
which includes knowledge of how to drive a car or knowledge of how to play baseball.
Practical knowledge is often called know-how because it is the ability to know how to do
something.
This type of knowledge is implicit or unconscious, and in fact is knowledge that we utilize every
waking second of our lives.
For example, we don’t have to analyze and gain knowledge of how to walk down a flight
of steps each time we encounter a new step. Instead, at an early age we develop the practical
knowledge of how to walk down stairs and unconsciously retain this knowledge for the remainder of
our lives. Practical knowledge has typically not been the main concern of epistemology.
However, some philosophers, most notably Martin Heidegger, have spent considerable time contemplating
this type of knowledge, as he viewed it as a much more fundamental and important type
of knowledge than propositional knowledge. An individual could be a genius in quantum
physics, however, this knowledge would be virtually useless if the individual didn’t
have the practical knowledge of how to get out of bed in the morning. However, as we
just said, traditionally the focus of epistemology has been on propositional knowledge. Even
when Heidegger philosophized about practical knowledge, he was in fact trying to arrive
at propositional knowledge about practical knowledge, or in other words, facts about
our practical knowledge. When one declares that they have propositional knowledge or
knowledge of a fact, what exactly does this knowing entail? Or more specifically, what
does it mean to know? Nicholas Rescher provides an answer to this question in his book Epistemology,
an introduction to the theory of knowledge. He writes, but what is propositional knowledge?
It is emphatically not an activity or performance. You cannot answer the question what are you
doing with the response, I am knowing that Paris is the capital of France, any more than
you could say, I am owning this watch, or I am liking roses. Knowing a fact is not something
that one does. It is a condition that one has come to occupy in relation to information.
When one comes to occupy such a relation to information, thus attaining knowledge of a
fact, epistemologists have often defined this propositional knowledge as justified true
true belief. This definition emphasizes that mere belief is not enough to constitute knowledge.
Rather one must have good reasons for believing something to be true. So when one says, I
believe this to be the case, it should not be assumed to have the same meaning as if
one had said, I know this to be the case. And in everyday language, a difference between
these two statements is indeed usually recognized. Rather, in order to know or have knowledge
of something, in the sense of justified true belief, there must be solid grounds for holding
the belief and the individual must be aware of such grounds.
Guesses, conjectures, and mere opinions that may or may not lead an individual to a correct
belief of a fact are typically not classified as knowledge, because such an individual would
not be aware of the reasons for the proposition being true.
Now that we have introduced epistemology and looked at what it means to have knowledge,
We will conclude the lecture by addressing the interesting question of why humans need
a theory of knowledge in the first place.
As Aristotle seems to have alluded to in the quote at the beginning of this lecture, humans
seem to be inquisitive by nature.
In a related manner, Nicholas Rescher suggests that knowledge brings great benefits.
The release of ignorance is foremost among them.
We have evolved within nature into the ecological niche of an intelligent being.
consequence, the need for understanding, for knowing one’s way about, is one of the most
fundamental demands of the human condition. But while this may explain why we as humans
need knowledge, it does not quite address why we need a theory of knowledge. If one
accepts what is presented to their senses or determined through the rational workings
of their mind as true, and is not skeptical as to its validity, then the need for epistemology
is limited, for in such a case one does not question what knowledge is or how humans can
obtain it.
This sort of view seems to be the case for some of the ancient pre-Socratic philosophers
who seemed to take for granted that we could know the nature of the universe.
As the great historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston said,
The pre-Socratic philosophers in the main were dogmatists, in the sense that they assumed
that man could know reality objectively.
However, when one begins to question if we can be sure that the ideas or representations in our mind actually correspond to the world outside of ourselves, or if we can ever hope to bridge the gulf between our ideas about the world and the world itself, then the problem of knowledge arises and along with it the need for an epistemology, or a theory of knowledge.
Interestingly, some have suggested that it is fear that has led to the development of epistemology.
A fear that we as human beings are lost in the cosmos with tools that are too inadequate to give us the knowledge we desire,
such as explanations for why things happen, or truths about the meaning or purpose of our life in the scheme of this vast cosmos.
Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison illuminate this point in their fascinating work Objectivity.
They write,
All epistemology begins in fear.
Fear that the senses are too feeble and the intellect too frail.
Fear that memory fades, even between adjacent steps of a mathematical demonstration.
Fear that authority and convention blinds.
Fear that God may keep secrets or demons deceive.
The 17th century polymath Blaise Pascal seems to have suggested such a fear when he wrote,
Swallowed up in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I know nothing and which know nothing of me,
I take fright. So to summarize the main points of the lecture, epistemology is the theory of
knowledge, and knowledge, in the sense of propositional knowledge, has been defined as
justified true belief. Furthermore, as we speculated, it was fear which led to the need for a theory of
knowledge, and as Dastin and Galison suggest in their book, epistemologists have attempted to
quell this fear by trying to clear a pathway towards the possibility of knowledge by removing
the sources of error and imperfections which have plagued humans in their quest to know.
Source: Academy of Ideas