Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Epistemology is he study of our right to the beliefs we have. In a broader sense, we start from what we call our cognitive stances, and ask whether we are justified to have these stances. When discussing cognitive stances, we must include both our beliefs as well as what we take to be our knowing. At an even deeper level we examine our attitudes towards the various strategies and methods we use to get new beliefs and filter out old ones. Epistemology is concerned then with whether we have acted responsibly or irresponsibly in forming the beliefs we have. Based on this process, we ultimately want to find true knowledge or justified belief. Traditionally, there are four sources of knowledge; sensation, memory, introspection, and reason.
The one source of knowledge that I am particularly interested in discussing and examining is reason. The activities of reason are dualistic in nature. First, there is inference, in which we move from old knowledge to new knowledge. The strongest form of this is valid deductive inference, which occurs when it is not possible that our premises are true of our conclusion is false, but I will deal with this more clearly later. The second activity of reason is the discovery of new truths. Such a truth that can be discovered by the activity of reason alone is called an a priori truth, and knowledge of it is a priori knowledge. One of the most alluring and great questions in epistemology is how a priori knowledge is possible, and what sorts of truth can be known in this way. Some propositions are true in virtue of their meaning alone. For example, look at the proposition; all bachelors are people. We know this truth to introspection and/or to memory. So, we know it by reason, but such analytic propositions are trivial and give us
substantial knowledge. “Can reason give us substantial knowledge of anything, or is all a priori knowledge analytic and therefore trivial.” In examining knowledge, the general consensus by philosophers and theorists is that true belief is a necessary condition for knowledge, and it was once thought that justification, when added to true belief, yields a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge. Its sufficiency however, was disproved by Edmund Gettier.
My purpose of this paper, is two look at the dualistic relationship, if any, of these two aspects (A Priori Knowledge and Gettier
Epistemology tells us how we come to acquire knowledge and what type of limits there are on our knowledge. Berkeley’s epistemological argument is that the physical and mental world are one-in-the-same. He denies the existence of an external world and believes that the world is only a collection of ideas in our heads. We only know things to be real as we experience them and we only experience our ideas. This leads Berkeley to the conclusion that for something to be real, that means that it is the object of some type of experience. Without epistemology, people would have no reason to believe in their thoughts and actions because there would be no difference between truth and error. We need epistemology to accept reality.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
The epistemological concept questions “how do I know?” The epistemological dimension is how we view the assumptions of knowledge to decide what to believe (Marcia, 2008, p2). The way in which information is delivered affects how it perceived by those who receive the information. Intrapersonal dimension is how we chose and adopt the values and beliefs that we decide to live by (Marcia, 2008, p8). For example, as a student in the first phase of self-authorship, I seek my values and beliefs according to seeking acceptance from those around me, while others who may be further down the process chose their values and beliefs according to who they are. Interpersonal dimensions is the connection between yourself and with others (Marcia, 2008, p9). It is the understanding of others views and developing a mature and respectful way to interact with everyone. “Complex epistemological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development is necessary for adults to build complex belief systems, to form a coherent sense of identity, and to develop authentic, mature relations with diverse others (Baxter Magolda, 2001).” Within this course, I believe that we have learned a bit of all of three dimensions. Reading the
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
The source of knowledge is not a topic that is universally agreed upon. To rationalists, who usually have a sense of the divine, innate ideas give them cause to base knowledge in reason, being derived from ideas. To empiricists, who do not hold innate ideas to be valid, knowledge is unearthed through the senses, derived from observations. The presence of a concept of the divine is the deciding factor of whether knowledge originates from the senses or the ideas.
...osyncratic individualities and to normalize knowers and knowledge. Epistemology of particular knowledge demands consideration to distinctions and codify for admittance and for examination the perspicacity of knowers. Once knowledge is comprehended as being distinctive to and established by the knower, it surrenders its standing and converts to plural. This leads to the knowers’ comprehension distinct to themselves. While also an individuals knowledge develops the epistemological substance that produce an bionetwork of knowing which notifies and incorporates social groups, organizations and associations. When accepting comprehensively and bearing in mind the interconnection of knowers, the grander epistemological network is a societal or epistemological illusory. One that recommends the parameters of how it can be known, what can be known, and what becomes knowledge.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
Beliefs are a condition of said knowledge. Davidson’s argument deals a lot with the concept of objective trut...
A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience. There are a variety of views about whether a priori justification can be defeated by other evidence, especially by empirical evidence, and a variety of views about whether a priori justification, or knowledge, must be only of necessary, or analytic, propositions, or at least of ones believed to be necessary or analytic (Russell, 2011).
Epistemology helped me investigate the procedure I went through for crafting the essays. I referred to books, online articles, journal and other publications to understand and justify the concepts and information. It helped me distinguish between what is false, what is true across diverse contexts, and to decide the boundaries of knowledge based on how that knowledge is acquired. I also evaluated the truthfulness of my beliefs and personal opinion. I am actuated by understanding the sources of knowledge and also the quality of the resulting knowledge – knowing its dimensions and limitations.
Epistemology, also known as theory of knowledge is the part of philosophy that discusses the nature and scope of knowledge. Some questions that study the nature of knowledge could be, Have you ever thought about how we know things? What does it mean for someone to know something? How much can we possibly know? How do you know that 2 + 2 = 4, or that the square root of 144 is 12? Do we know something from reason or from di...
Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
In this paper I will explain what objective knowledge is and why we can have objective knowledge. I will clearly define several key terms that are crucial to this discussion. With these definitions in mind, I will explain the necessity of objective knowledge for reason and reality. Then, I will outline and expound on a reduction absurdum argument, explaining the contradictory postulate and exposing a contradiction. Finally, I will describe the view of Global Skepticism, and show how the Global Skeptic lives in opposition to his or her outlook. Through these arguments, it will be apparent that logic and reality demand the existence of objective knowledge.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, various problems of skepticism, the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?" and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"