Epistemology
- Thread starter bodach
- Start date
max_freakout
Nothing matters
this is the best epistemology book in the world:
Sosa, E. and Kim, J. eds. 1999. Epistemology: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell
everything you could possibly need to know
but that isnt my answer to the question, dont read that one firt it's too advanced, it will put you off the subject
i need to find the one im thinking of, an introductory book which is a great read, cant rememebr the titel, picture of a moose on the cover, i'll be back.......
Sosa, E. and Kim, J. eds. 1999. Epistemology: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell
everything you could possibly need to know
but that isnt my answer to the question, dont read that one firt it's too advanced, it will put you off the subject
i need to find the one im thinking of, an introductory book which is a great read, cant rememebr the titel, picture of a moose on the cover, i'll be back.......
max_freakout
Nothing matters
So was epistemology evolved in 1999. Or is epistemolgy another word evolving.
afaik, no startling developments ave occured in the field since 1999
tbh, modern epistemology is very dry
max_freakout
Nothing matters
I found it, it's this one:
A Guide through the Theory of Knowledge. By Adam Morton
a very easy to read straightforward introduction to all the main issues
A Guide through the Theory of Knowledge. By Adam Morton
a very easy to read straightforward introduction to all the main issues
max_freakout
Nothing matters
So epistemology is dead.Bollocks, I paid £10 for it. But was it my money?
it isnt dead, until everybody either admits that knowledge is impossible and the sceptic ha won, OR, some philosopher comes up with the final definitive theory of knowledge
Neither of these things have happened yet, therefore there is still work to be done in this field
Jonti
what the dormouse said
That's coming at things from the wrong end, which happens a lot to philosophers. Of course we know stuff. We just don't understand how that is possible!
We don't really need a "final definitive theory of knowledge" -- just to have some kind of a clue about how knowledge is possible at all would be good!
We don't really need a "final definitive theory of knowledge" -- just to have some kind of a clue about how knowledge is possible at all would be good!
max_freakout
Nothing matters
I disagree, anything you think you know, could turn out to be false
what you are saying, implies that the sceptical position has no basis, yet if this was true, there would be no need for epistemology!
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Including your claim, right?
What you have said is already making a claim to a kind of (certain, timeless, irrefutable ...) knowledge!
This is exactly what socrates was getting at when he said "the wise man knows that he knows nothing"
It isnt 'my claim', it is the general claim of epistemological sceptisism
it is true, that anything you know could turn out to be false, including the assertion that anything you know could turn out to be false
Wisdom (according to Socrates) is to grasp this contradiction, modern epistemology, however, does not accept this,and instead seeks to prove how you could know something for certain, but this hasnt been proven yet, therefore the sceptical position remains unchallenged
Just because it could turn out that I am wrong about something does not mean that I don't know it. Otherwise you are conflating knowledge with godlike certainty. As Wittgenstein might have said (or not, I'm a bit hazy on him) the very idea of knowledge presupposes the possibility of being wrong.
I don't think this was what Socrates was saying at all. I think he was just asserting that we all think we know shit that we don't, and if we were more thoughtful about things we would realise that.
The sceptical position will always remain unchallenged, because it's not a position, it's an attitude. It will always be possible to say 'Ahh... but is it?' to any system of knowledge.
I found it, it's this one:
A Guide through the Theory of Knowledge. By Adam Morton
a very easy to read straightforward introduction to all the main issues
Ok.
I went to Inver Snecky and got Audi, R. (2006). Epistemology - A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge.
isbn: 0 415 28109 1
I suppose one person's theory of knowledge isn't the same as another person's.
No one, not even philosophers, really walks around applying a theory of knowledge to everyday things though. Epistemology, like most contemporary philosophy, is really just an awareness of the limits of our ways of thinking. Epistemology teaches us to be careful how we talk about knowledge and certainty, and to avoid making claims that we can't support.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
I suppose what you've just written could turn out to be a falsity then? It may not be true at all, despite what you say!
Actually, what I'd like to do is apply epistemology to Scottish travel literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Authors such as Martin Martin, Thomas Pennant, Boswell and Johnson, Dorothy Wordsworth and Elizabeth Grant of Rothiemurchus. Our 'knowledge' of that era is restricted by what information we have.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Yes it does! If you dont know that you coudlnt turn out to be wrong about a particular proposition, then you do not know that you know tat proposition, this is what distinguishes knowledge from belief
In order to know a proposition, the proposition must be true, if it isnt true, then i dont know it
from the dictionary, knowledge means:
i dont know about 'godlike' but knowledge definitely requires absolue certainty (an easier way of putting this, is to say that knowledge requires TRUTH)
knowledge IS certainty!
I'm not sure what you mean by applying epistemology to literature. A study of epistemology won't give you any new methods of working out whether we can know things. It sounds like you need a more practical guide to reading historical material, which you are more likely to find in the History section than the Philosophy section of your local bookshop/library/internet.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
I suppose what you've just written could turn out to be a falsity then? It may not be true at all, despite what you say!
this is the grand conundrum that lies at the heart of epistemology, without it, there would be no need for epistemology in the first place
1.) any proposition could be false
2.) statement 1 applies to statement 1
Of course knowledge needs to be true, but it doesn't need to be 100% certain. Consider: I have in my mind a firm belief of what my date of birth is, based on memories of various things (including my family telling me, seeing various documents etc). I accept the physical possibility that I am wrong, due to being lied to or having a dodgy memory, but - assuming that I am not wrong - do I now know my own birthday?
The point about knowledge presupposing the possibility of being wrong is this: the only way that belief and truth are 100% guaranteed to coincide are when the very act of knowing and the thing known are the same. So, for Descartes we can be certain about the contents of our beliefs because you can't believe that it is raining and at the same time believe that you don't believe it's raining. But to know (in this strict sense) anything outside your own mind would only be possible for God, for whom believing something is the same thing as it being true. As long as belief is a correspondence between two things - a state of my mind, and a fact in the world - the possibility of there being a mistake is inherent in the very fact that they are two separate things.
Epistemology is a purely abstract, theoretical study of the way we understand belief and knowledge. It is not a 'concept'.
Can you give an example of what you want to say about Scottish travel literature?
Again, I disagree. I don't think this is 'at the heart' of epistemology at all.
The authors that I mentioned above all wrote about their travels in Scotland between 1695 and 1850. They all came from very different social backgrounds, so therefore, their experiences would all vary. So what they wrote would be influenced by this. But the 'knowledge' that they put into words is not a definitive knowledge but an influenced 'knowledge'.
I'll come back to it later, my head hurts too much just now with all these thoughts going through my head.
I'll come back to it later, my head hurts too much just now with all these thoughts going through my head.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
To know a proposition requires the truth of the proposition, to know that one knows a proposition, requires absolute certainty that the proposition is true
you answered your own question, you assume you know your own birthday, because you assume that you are not wrong, but this assumption is itself not certain (because you dont know that this assumption is a valid one)
you dont know your birthday, because you might have been lied to about it. you believe that your birthday is on a certain date, but this is not knowledge
a more general way of putting this, is to say that you dont know anything, because you dont know that the sceptic isnt wrong
...therefore, knowledge is impossible
You're expounding a pefectly consistent point of view, that knowledge (as you understand it) is impossible, but it does nothing. If you choose to define knowledge as that which we cannot be wrong about then, surprise suprise, you'll discover that we don't know anything.
But here's the thing: You don't really believe that. You don't believe that you don't know anything. You're not just pretending to know things so that people don't think you're a nutter. Furthermore, everyone else thinks they know things. We argue about whether we are right or wrong about things. We make decisions based on how much we know and what we know. And people with a robust and well-justified set of beliefs tend to achieve things that those without cannot.
Ok, let's accept it though. Let's act AS IF we accept that we can't know anything. What, then, shall we call the firm belief that I have of my birthday? Let's call it *knowledge, and then we can have a new section of the library devoted to *epistemology in which we study how we can have *knowledge about things.
This *knowledge can be analysed thus:
I *know proposition 'P' if and only if:
- P is true
- I have sufficient reason to believe P (the exact nature of this reason being the subject of most epistemology books)
This has the rather exciting consequence that, if I have a good reason to believe that my birthday is on May the Fourth, then:
if my birthday IS on May the Fourth, I *know when my birthday is
but
if my birthday IS NOT on May the Fourth I don't *know, I am mistaken.
In other words, whether or not I *know something is dependent on how the world is, and is partly a matter of luck. I can see why this upsets people, but there it is.
To go back to knowledge for a minute (i.e. knowledge as complete certainty). Let's be clear about how impossible it is. It's isn't just that no one happens to know anything, or that we haven't yet worked out how to know things, it's that it is conceptually nonsensical to talk of anyone ever knowing anything. For belief to be absolutely certain, for belief B to be logically equivalent to fact F, would entail them being one and the same thing, the subject and object would be identical. But, conversely, the idea of knowledge entails the idea of a subject and an object, a knower and a fact. So this idea of knowledge is empty because it is self-contradictory.
But here's the thing: You don't really believe that. You don't believe that you don't know anything. You're not just pretending to know things so that people don't think you're a nutter. Furthermore, everyone else thinks they know things. We argue about whether we are right or wrong about things. We make decisions based on how much we know and what we know. And people with a robust and well-justified set of beliefs tend to achieve things that those without cannot.
Ok, let's accept it though. Let's act AS IF we accept that we can't know anything. What, then, shall we call the firm belief that I have of my birthday? Let's call it *knowledge, and then we can have a new section of the library devoted to *epistemology in which we study how we can have *knowledge about things.
This *knowledge can be analysed thus:
I *know proposition 'P' if and only if:
- P is true
- I have sufficient reason to believe P (the exact nature of this reason being the subject of most epistemology books)
This has the rather exciting consequence that, if I have a good reason to believe that my birthday is on May the Fourth, then:
if my birthday IS on May the Fourth, I *know when my birthday is
but
if my birthday IS NOT on May the Fourth I don't *know, I am mistaken.
In other words, whether or not I *know something is dependent on how the world is, and is partly a matter of luck. I can see why this upsets people, but there it is.
To go back to knowledge for a minute (i.e. knowledge as complete certainty). Let's be clear about how impossible it is. It's isn't just that no one happens to know anything, or that we haven't yet worked out how to know things, it's that it is conceptually nonsensical to talk of anyone ever knowing anything. For belief to be absolutely certain, for belief B to be logically equivalent to fact F, would entail them being one and the same thing, the subject and object would be identical. But, conversely, the idea of knowledge entails the idea of a subject and an object, a knower and a fact. So this idea of knowledge is empty because it is self-contradictory.
I don't think this is epistemology so much as... thinking. Being aware of how people interpret things. One thing is for sure, an introduction to epistemology will not help you to investigate this. Epistemologists argue about things like coherence and correspondence, a priori and a posteriori reasoning. It is essentially a dry, technical discipline that will not give you any insight into the mind of a 18th century writer or the reliability of their travel journals.The authors that I mentioned above all wrote about their travels in Scotland between 1695 and 1850. They all came from very different social backgrounds, so therefore, their experiences would all vary. So what they wrote would be influenced by this. But the 'knowledge' that they put into words is not a definitive knowledge but an influenced 'knowledge'.
I'll come back to it later, my head hurts too much just now with all these thoughts going through my head.
But if my epistemological view is based on the books that I've read from that period, is that the 'knowledge'?
