Reference: William James – American Philosopher
My introduction to Epistemology has been through the Wikipedia article on William James (see above). Below are excerpts in italics from the section Epistemology from William James’ article followed by my comments in bold:
(1) “James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer.” I think so too. A person will keep a belief because it is restraining some confusion. It helps him to think.
(2) “Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as the extent to which they “hang together,” or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together; these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.” Exactly so. Reality is mindfulness. It is what it is. Truth is the consistency among what is. This consistency exists between the thoughts and actual things. This consistency also exists among the thoughts themselves. An inconsistency indicates the presence of arbitrary assumptions.
(3) “The most ancient parts of truth . . . also once were plastic. They also were called true for human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations.” All truths are relative to each other. They are also consistent with each other. This is the case no matter how far back one goes. There is no absolute truth.
(4) “… the value of any truth was utterly dependent upon its use to the person who held it.” Yes, that would be personal truth. There is also broader truth that is based on reality regardless of personal viewpoint. The broader truth may be different from personal truth.
(5) “… the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly interpreted and understood through an application of “radical empiricism.” [… the mind and its experiences, and nature are inseparable.]” It is true that actual things and how they are perceived cannot be separated. No observation is truly objective. However, as we remove inconsistencies one by one, any observation can be brought closer to being objective.
(6) “James’s emphasis on diversity as the default human condition—over and against duality, especially Hegelian dialectical duality—has maintained a strong influence in American culture…” That is correct. Awareness of ‘inconsistency’ is not necessarily a conflict between two opposites. It could be a more involved interaction. The inconsistency may not be resolved by a two- or multiple-valued logic. It may need to be approached with the infinite-valued logic of scales.
(7) “The ‘facts’ themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them.” Yes, the facts simply ARE. The truth lies in the interpretation that demonstrates consistency among them. Any inconsistency shall reveal arbitrary assumptions.
(8) “James seems to speak of truth in relativistic terms… he supported an epistemological realism position.” [Epistemological realism holds that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind.] When facts are simply taken for what they are, and the truth is measured in terms of consistency, or coherency, then it doesn’t matter whether an object exists independently of the mind or not.
.
From Wikipedia:
Epistemology (… from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος, logos, meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The term “epistemology” was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).
.
I shall now like to explore the subject of Epistemology through the Wikipedia article. Please see the comments below, which will be made over time.
.
Comments
Branches or ‘tendencies’ within epistemology
Historical
(Wikipedia) The historical study of philosophical epistemology is the historical study of efforts to gain philosophical understanding or knowledge of the nature and scope of human knowledge. Since efforts to get that kind of understanding have a history, the questions philosophical epistemology asks today about human knowledge are not necessarily the same as they once were. But that does not mean that philosophical epistemology is itself a historical subject, or that it pursues only or even primarily historical understanding.
.
The effort here is to understand the nature and scope of human knowledge.
Empiricism
(Wikipedia) In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge focusing on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. Certain forms treat all knowledge as empirical, while some regard disciplines such as mathematics and logic as exceptions.
There are many variants of empiricism, positivism and realism being among the most commonly expounded but central to all empiricist epistemologies is the notion of the epistemologically privileged status of sense data.
.
The focus here is on knowledge based on perceptual observations by the senses.
Idealism
(Wikipedia) Many idealists believe that knowledge is primarily (at least in some areas) acquired by a priori processes or is innate—for example, in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical processes often go by the name “intuition”. The relevant theoretical concepts may purportedly be part of the structure of the human mind (as in Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism), or they may be said to exist independently of the mind (as in Plato’s theory of Forms).
.
The basis of knowledge is awareness. Without awareness there shall be no knowledge. Therefore, knowledge must start out with awareness being aware of itself.
Rationalism
(Wikipedia) By contrast with empiricism and idealism, which centres around the epistemologically privileged status of sense data (empirical) and the primacy of Reason (theoretical) respectively, modern rationalism adds a third ‘system of thinking’, (as Gaston Bachelard has termed these areas) and holds that all three are of equal importance: The empirical, the theoretical and the abstract. For Bachelard, rationalism makes equal reference to all three systems of thinking.
An example of abstract thinking is Pythagoras’ concept of ‘pure’ geometric forms: perfect triangles, squares, circles, etc. Another example is imaginary numbers, in mathematics.
.
The key systems of thinking are specified above as empirical, theoretical, and the abstract. The ‘empirical’ does not bother about how reality comes about in the first place. The ‘theoretical’ considers the origins of reality. And the ‘abstract’ tries to relate empirical to the theoretical.
Constructivism
(Wikipedia) Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all “knowledge is a compilation of human-made constructions”, “not the neutral discovery of an objective truth”. Whereas objectivism is concerned with the “object of our knowledge”, constructivism emphasizes “how we construct knowledge”. Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that form a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity, and on viability instead of truth. Piagetian constructivism, however, believes in objectivity—constructs can be validated through experimentation. The constructivist point of view is pragmatic; as Vico said: “The norm of the truth is to have made it.”
.
Constructivism seems to be a self-centric view of knowledge.
The regress problem
(Wikipedia) “… to justify a belief one must appeal to a further justified belief. This means that one of two things can be the case. Either there are some [epistemologically basic] beliefs that we can be justified for holding, without being able to justify them on the basis of any other belief, or else for each justified belief there is an infinite regress of (potential) justification [the nebula theory]. On this theory there is no rock bottom of justification. Justification just meanders in and out through our network of beliefs, stopping nowhere.” The apparent impossibility of completing an infinite chain of reasoning is thought by some to support skepticism. Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
.
All knowledge is relative. There is no datum of knowledge that is absolute. Ultimately, it boils down to knowledge being tautological.
(Wikipedia)
Response to the regress problem
Many epistemologists studying justification have attempted to argue for various types of chains of reasoning that can escape the regress problem.
Infinitism
It is not impossible for an infinite justificatory series to exist. This position is known as “infinitism”. Infinitists typically take the infinite series to be merely potential, in the sense that an individual may have indefinitely many reasons available to him, without having consciously thought through all of these reasons when the need arises. This position is motivated in part by the desire to avoid what is seen as the arbitrariness and circularity of its chief competitors, foundationalism and coherentism. In mathematics, an infinite series will sometimes converge – (this is the basis of calculus) – one can therefore have an infinite series of logical arguments and analyze it for a convergent (or non-convergent) solution.”
.
Infinitism assumes possible convergence to some absolute datum.
(Wikipedia)
Foundationalism
Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by asserting that certain “foundations” or “basic beliefs” support other beliefs but do not themselves require justification from other beliefs. These beliefs might be justified because they are self-evident, infallible, or derive from reliable cognitive mechanisms. Perception, memory, and a priori intuition are often considered to be possible examples of basic beliefs.
The chief criticism of foundationalism is that if a belief is not supported by other beliefs, accepting it may be arbitrary or unjustified, though foundationalism is based upon the principle that these beliefs are infallible enough to be recognised as such in practice.
.
Foundationalism assumes basic beliefs that are absolute.
(Wikipedia)
Coherentism
Another response to the regress problem is coherentism, which is the rejection of the assumption that the regress proceeds according to a pattern of linear justification. To avoid the charge of circularity, coherentists hold that an individual belief is justified circularly by the way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part. This theory has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special, possibly arbitrary status for some particular class of beliefs. Yet, since a system can be coherent while also being wrong, coherentists face the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds to reality. Additionally, most logicians agree that any argument that is circular is trivially valid. That is, to be illuminating, arguments must be linear with conclusions that follow from stated premises.
However, Warburton writes in ‘Thinking from A to Z,’ “Circular arguments are not invalid; in other words, from a logical point of view there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them. However, they are, when viciously circular, spectacularly uninformative.(Warburton 1996).”
.
I prefer Coherentism. There is nothing wrong with circularity. Circularity is not “spectacularly uninformative” when the radius is infinitely large.
(Wikipedia)
Foundherentism
A position known as “foundherentism”, advanced by Susan Haack, is meant to be a unification of foundationalism and coherentism. One component of this theory is what is called the “analogy of the crossword puzzle.” Whereas, for example, infinitists regard the regress of reasons as “shaped” like a single line, Susan Haack has argued that it is more like a crossword puzzle, with multiple lines mutually supporting each other.
.
A single straight line is part of a circle with infinite radius. I can see a sphere with infinite radius as a model for knowledge .
(Wikipedia)
What do people know?
The last question that will be dealt with is the question of what people know. At the heart of this area of study is skepticism, with many approaches involved trying to disprove some particular form of it.
Skepticism
Skepticism is related to the question of whether a certain knowledge is possible. If point B cannot be proven before point A, and if in order to prove point A it must be established with absolute certainty, then skepticism argues that it is difficult to prove any point at all. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic beliefs that are justified without reference to others. The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that “basic beliefs” must exist, amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope. While a foundationalist would use Münchhausen trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs, a skeptic would see no problem with admitting the result.
.
All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty.
“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha
.
(Wikipedia)
Developments from skepticism
Early in the 20th century, the notion that belief had to be justified as such to count as knowledge lost favour. Fallibilism is the view that knowing something does not entail certainty regarding it. Charles Sanders Peirce was a fallibilist and the most developed form of fallibilism can be traced to Karl Popper (1902–1994) whose first book Logik Der Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery), 1934 introduced a “conjectural turn” into the philosophy of science and epistemology at large. He adumbrated a school of thought that is known as Critical Rationalism with a central tenet being the rejection of the idea that knowledge can ever be justified in the strong form that is sought by most schools of thought. His two most helpful exponents are the late William W Bartley and David Miller, recently retired from the University of Warwick. A major source of on-line material is the Critical Rationalist website and also the Rathouse of Rafe Champion.
.
(Wikipedia) Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, “liable to err”) is the philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs. In the most commonly used sense of the term, this consists in being open to new evidence that would contradict some previously held position or belief, and in the recognition that “any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in light of new evidence, new arguments, and new experiences.” This position is taken for granted in the natural sciences.
.
I support this view as expressed under fallibilism.
.
(Wikipedia)
Epistemic culture
Epistemic culture distinguishes between various settings of knowledge production and stresses their contextual aspects. Coined by Karin Knorr-Cetina in her book Epistemic Cultures; she defines epistemic cultures as an “amalgam of arrangements and mechanisms—bonded through affinity, necessity and historical coincidence—which in a given field, make up how we know what we know”. The term provides the conceptual framework used to demonstrate that different laboratories do not share the same “scientific” knowledge production model, but rather each is endowed with a different epistemic culture prescribing what is adequate knowledge and how it is obtained. Since its introduction, the term has been picked up and used by various researchers engaging in science and technology studies.
.
How we know what we know can have different conceptual frameworks.
.