Epistemology

Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος, logos, meaning "study of") is the foundation of philosophy being it is "the study of knowledge, understanding", and is also referred to as "The Theory of Knowledge".

Put concisely, Epistemology is the discipline that shares the understanding of the difference between knowledge, belief, and opinion.

It answers what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, as it focuses on the analysis of systems for truth-values, the extent to which a truth-value can be known, or even exists at all.

Contents

• Background
• Differentiation
• Knowledge
  • Understanding how
  • By acquaintance
  • By description
  • Knowing that
• Belief
  • Justification
  • Rationalization
• Opinion
  • Personal View
• References

Background

• The term Epistemology is equivalent to the German concept of Wissenschaftslehre, which was used by Fichte^[1] and Bolzano^[2] for different projects before taken up again by Husserl^[3].
  
  The Scottish Philosopher Ferrier^[4] coined epistemology on the model of 'ontology', to designate that branch of philosophy which aims to discover the meaning of knowledge, and called it the 'true beginning' of philosophy. It was probably first introduced in his Institutes of Metaphysic: The Theory of Knowing and Being^[5]
  
  French philosophers then gave the term épistémologie a narrower meaning as 'theory of knowledge [théorie de la connaissance].' E.g., Meyerson^[6] opened his Identity and Reality, written in 1908, with the remark that the word 'is becoming current' as equivalent to 'the philosophy of the sciences.'^[7]

Differentiation

• Epistemological Certainty - Knowledge: certain of a truth-value.
• Epistemological Uncertainty - Belief: uncertain of a truth-value.
• Epistemological View - Opinion: an offering without a truth-value.

Knowledge

• Epistemology includes understanding how, by acquaintance or description, does justify knowing that.
  
  
• Understanding how:
  • Epistemology includes the understanding of how
    • 2 + 2 = 4 is known in a certain system of mathematics
    • a person (e.g., oneself), place (e.g., one's hometown), or thing (e.g., cars) is known by a certain relationship
• By acquaintance
  • is to be directly aware of a certain system or object, such as:
    • to have an understanding of a certain system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 4 is defined
    • to have a relationship with a person, place, or thing, which begs the question^[8] "In what way?", answering to the relationship being defined.
• By description
  • is to have an understanding without relationship of a person, place, or thing, such as:
    • in knowing Christopher Columbus and things that have been said, but with no personal relationship to the individual whatsoever. This does not imply you understand what is said, it does only mean you know of things that have been said.
      • Christopher Columbus discovering a new world, without understanding 'new' is with regard to knowledge by acquaintance to him, can mean many different things.
• Knowing that
  • by acquaintance or description, it can be understood how that can be known.
    • to have an understanding of the certain system of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 4 is defined, one does understand how that 2 + 2 = 4 can be known.
    • to have a direct relationship defined by certain terms with a person, place, or thing, one does understand how that person, place, or thing, can be known.
    • to understand a description of a person, place, or thing, one does understand how that person, place, or thing, can be known.

Belief

• Epistemology includes the understanding of how all beliefs are justified, and how not all beliefs are rational.
  
  
• Justification
  • All beliefs are justified and reveal:
    • an individuals understanding of knowledge
    • an individuals mental health status
• Rationalization
  • Beliefs are found to be rational or not based on empiricism.
• An individual is justified in believing the definition of knowledge is "Justified True Belief" as it is popular, also what they've been taught to believe.
• In determining if this belief is rational or not, we look at evidence of other things related:
  1. Knowledge is to be certain of a truth-value
  2. Belief is to be uncertain of a truth-value altogether
  From this alone we find it is not rational to believe the definition of knowledge is "Justified True Belief", as it mixes belief with knowledge. An individual that holds this belief reveals they lack a proper understanding of the separation of knowledge from belief.

Opinion

• Epistemology includes the understanding of how when no truth-value does exist, a claim is a propositional opinion.
  
  
• Personal View
  • If one individual alleges a waterfall is beautiful, and a different individual alleges that same waterfall is boring. The opinion of each person is what they allege to be how they view the world.

References

1. ^ Johann Gottlieb Fichte(May 19, 1762 – January 27, 1814)
2. ^ Bernhard Bolzano(October 5, 1781 – December 18, 1848)
3. ^ Edmund Husserl(April 8, 1859 – April 27, 1938)
4. ^ James Frederick Ferrier(June 16, 1808, Edinburgh – June 11, 1864)
5. ^ J.F. Ferrier - Institutes of Metaphysic: The Theory of Knowing and Being (1854), p. 46.
6. ^ Émile Meyerson(French: [mɛjɛʁsɔn]; February 12, 1859 – December 2, 1933)
7. ^ Émile Meyerson - Identity and Reality
8. ^ Begging the Question - A Logical Fallacy

Epistemological Certainty - Knowledge

Where Certainty means absolute Certainty,

  Epistemological Certainty [is]

  Realization, without doubt, of evidence of a truth-value that is self-evident.

As no single thing is any other thing^[1]...
     No single truth contradicts any other truth.

The knowledge of the truth is understanding.
The truth is understood by the things that are made.

In order to justify you know a truth-value you must:

1. have evidence of a certain system you understand, and
2. the evidence must justify that the truth-value of the certain system can be known.

P is true;

1. You understand the certain system of P, and
2. The evidence justifies that the truth-value of P can be known

[P]: I Exist.

1. You understand where [things which are] [belong], and
2. The evidence of [things which are] of P, justifies that one can understand that the truth-value of P can be known.

To understand in [things which are]
   there are [things which are] that [belong] of P,
     is to be justified in knowing,
       with Epistemological Certainty, "I exist".

René Descartes - Cogito Ergo Sum^[2]:

The simple meaning is that doubting one's existence, in and of itself,
   proves that an "I" exists to do the doubting.

In simpler terms:

[I IS] OR [NOT in any way, shape, nor form, AT ALL]

Epistemological Certainty,
   upon reflection of the evidence, is Knowledge!

Contents

• Challenges
• Conclusion
• References

Challenges

It is widely held that certainty is impossible, attributed to:

• People not having a proper understanding of certainty vs uncertainty, which are equatable in limit to truth vs lies.
• Many people paraphrasing Socrates and/or Plato and misrepresenting their positions to mean "one cannot know anything with absolute certainty"^[3]
  
  Refuted by:
  
  Prominent Plato Scholars:
  • C.C.W. Taylor argues the "paradoxical formulation is a clear misreading"^[4].
  • Gail Fine argues "it is better not to attribute it to him"^[5].
• Physicist Carlo Rovelli argues "The very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt. Precisely because we keep questioning everything, especially our own premises, we are always ready to improve our knowledge. Therefore a good scientist is never 'certain'."^[6]
  
  Refuted by:
  
  • Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge".)^[7]
  • Stephen Jay Gould^[8] in 1981, describes fact in science as meaning data^[9].
  • Evolution with regard to biology means, observed changes over time^[10]. A good scientist is certain there are observed changes over time, and certain to maintain proper mutually exclusive lists of things known for certain from things that remain uncertain.
• Problem of induction^[11]
  
  Refuted by:
  
  • Induction having nothing to do with knowledge, as it leads to only a belief.

Conclusion

• I am certain that I am.
• I am certain to be certain of one thing, is to be certain of one thing at a time.

References

1. ^ The Three Classical Laws of thought
2. ^ René Descartes - Cogito Ergo Sum
3. ^ Michael Stokes (1997) - Apology of Socrates. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. p. 18. ISBN 0-85668-371-X..
4. ^ C.C.W. Taylor - (1998) Socrates, Oxford University Press, p. 46.
5. ^ Gail Fine (2008) - "Does Socrates Claim to Know that He Knows Nothing?", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy vol. 35 (2008),p. 51
6. ^ Carlo Rovelli - (2011) The Uselessness of Certainty
7. ^ Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge".)
8. ^ Stephen Jay Gould
9. ^ Data
10. ^ Evolution as fact and theory
11. ^ Problem of induction