That Philosophy Website

Epistemology: An introduction

Information: This article gives a brief introduction to the notion epistemology. It considers the tri-partite nature of knowledge in traditional epistemology, sets out some of the challenges for establishing the relationship between epistemology and ontology and also reviews the relationship between epistemology and metaphysics. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Epistemology is to do with the study of knowledge, or more specifically to do with what we know and how we know it. Therefore, we might say it is to do with justifying our knowledge. However, justified knowledge is also associated with the notion of truth, and the idea of belief. This is because people are not usually justified in claiming to have knowledge of things they do not believe to be true (E.g. Ask an atheist to explain what they know about God).

Of course, people all around the world differ in their fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality, and as a result they inevitably claim to be justified in knowing and believing many different things to other people. As such, Epistemologists work to examine and establish the conditions for indubitable knowledge (knowledge which cannot be doubted by anyone), and also to establish the conditions for knowing a statement is justifiably true.

Sometimes we hear philosophers talking about a tripartite definition of knowledge, but this is just another way of saying that knowledge is justified true belief.

The classic debate in epistemology is between Rationalists and Empiricists. In essence, Rationalists believe that we have innate knowledge whereas Empiricists believe that we acquire knowledge through experience.

One should note that the terms Rationalism and Empiricism are not always so clearly defined. For instance, the British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) was clearly an Empiricist (believing that the foundation of all knowledge is experience), yet he also held that one acquired knowledge as the mind sorted out and reflected on one's experiences.

It natural for most people to consider themselves Empiricists, for it seems reasonable to believe that our experiences are an indubitable basis for knowledge. For instance, we might say that we have no doubt that there is a computer in front of us - we can see it, touch it and hear it when we use the keyboard. However, there are times when we may think we see or hear something when we do not, and as such this begs the questions as to whether our experiences can act as an indubitable basis for knowledge.

Questions surrounding the reliability of sense-based knowledge (that is knowledge we acquire using our senses) have led some to argue that knowledge must be grounded elsewhere. For instance, one argument is that although there are times when our senses are misled about the nature of things in the world, it is illogical (or irrational) to suggest that there is no world 'out there'. In fact, it seems we are all born assuming this knowledge to be true (i.e. We do not have to convince young children that there is a reality outside of their minds, instead we teach them things about the nature of this reality we all assume to exist).

Let's examine this another way. Although people might have different beliefs about the colour, shape and texture of a table, the fact is that there must still a table 'out there' (otherwise what are people saying they are having different experiences of). Yet what is the 'true nature of a table' if people are having different experiences of this object? If we cannot know what a table is 'in itself' (or as it truly is), then how can we claim that any knowledge we have of tables is reliable and true? For the Rationalist, if one had innate knowledge of tables, then we could judge the reliability of our experiences of tables by this.

The bottom line for Rationalists and Empiricists is this; if our knowledge of a table is not innate, and we do not have (or cannot attain) perfect knowledge of what a table is through our senses, then what exactly is a table, and how do we know?

So far we have spoken about Empiricism and Rationalism as ways of understanding as a basis for knowledge. However, these theories of knowledge are also supported by fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality and truth.

Popular amongst Rationalists and religious believers is the idea that there is Absolute Truth beyond the physical realm. In technical terms, this is known as realism. Realists believe that our knowledge of these truths is one of discovery. In other words, x will always be x no matter what we believe about it. As such, realists tend to argue that any deviation in our knowledge of these truths is due to human error - either accidental or deliberate.

The opposite to realism is non-realism (or anti-realism). This is the idea that there are no absolute truths beyond the physical realm. Non-realists tend to believe that our knowledge of things is one of discovery, collaboration and coherence. Many non-realists also emphasise the relativity of knowledge, claiming that as there is no privileged vantage-point from which to judge things as being ultimately right or wrong, that it is more to do with 'what works' for people (or what feels right) than anything else.

In between the realist and non-realist camps is critical realism. This is the idea that although there are (in theory) ultimate truths, we have to accept that we are limited in what we can know about them due to the fact that we all have a unique take on reality. Probably the best known critical realist is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He argued that although our knowledge is influenced by certain cognitive conditions in the mind (such as space and time), that there was still a reality beyond our perception of things.

Kant divided reality into phenomena (things in the physical realm) and noumena (things beyond the physical realm). He believed that although we cannot attain knowledge of things in the noumenal realm, this was no reason to assume they did not exist.

Sometimes we may find philosophers using epistemological arguments on which to draw conclusions about the nature of reality. For example, Logical Positivists argued that all we can know are facts, and that facts are either logically true or must be proven to be true through experience. In saying this they were making the claim that all knowledge is essentially sense-based.

However, rather than stop there they then went on to suggest that because we cannot know anything beyond our experience, that nothing lay beyond the physical realm (as this is all we can experience). Yet this is not a logically sound argument. To say that because we cannot know x that x does not exist, is an unsound. Instead, all we can say is that due to our limited experience (so far) there is a problem justifying our knowledge of x at the present time - and that is all.