PDA

View Full Version : What Is Your Epistemology?




nate895
11-13-2009, 08:09 PM
First, I am sure the poll will not include all possible epistemological systems, but will try to include the beliefs of most people.

Second, some definitions:

Epistemology: Theory of Knowledge

Forms of Epistemology:

Foundationalism: Self-evident beliefs justify other beliefs
Coherentism: a person's beliefs must be self-coherent
Internalism: belief justification through internal knowledge
Externalism: belief justification through outside sources of knowledge
Skepticism: knowledge itself might not be possible
Foundherentism: combination of Foundationalism and Coherentism
Infinitism: Justification through an infinite regress chain of reasons

Those are all the broad categories, but I am also going to include some specific beliefs:
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained through sensory perception (with possible exceptions)
Revelatory: God's revelation is foundational to our beliefs
Rationalism: human reason is the foundation for knowledge
Platonic Realist: Universals exist outside of space/time
Nihilism: Knowledge is impossible

There are many other specific beliefs roaming around out there, but those are some of the most important.

Note on Reformed Epistemology: I hesitate to include because it deals with the limited area of God's existence.

axiomata
11-13-2009, 08:52 PM
Voted for Foundherentism even though I have never heard of it before this thread.

nate895
11-13-2009, 08:59 PM
Voted for Foundherentism even though I have never heard of it before this thread.

It's a minority viewpoint, but I don't understand why. If there is going to be a foundation to knowledge, that foundation should necessarily lead to coherency if one follows through with the foundation to its logical conclusions, otherwise the foundation would be bogus. I also don't understand Coherentism in and of itself, because it means nothing if your beliefs are coherent if they aren't true.

Joe3113
11-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Empiricism - But how it is really meant, not what the socialist positivists have taken over.

The Austrian School is truly empiricist.

http://mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf

Whether we consider the Action Axiom “a priori” or “empirical”
depends on our ultimate philosophical position. Professor Mises, in the neo-
Kantian tradition, considers this axiom a law of thought and therefore a
categorical truth a priori to all experience. My own epistemological position
rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas rather than Kant, and hence I would
interpret the proposition differently. I would consider the axiom a law of
reality rather than a law of thought, and hence “empirical” rather than “a
priori.” But it should be obvious that this type of “empiricism” is so out of
step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori
for present purposes. For (1) it is a law of reality that is not conceivably
falsifiable, and yet is empirically meaningful and true; (2) it rests on universal
inner experience, and not simply on external experience, that is, its evidence
is reflective rather than physical7; and (3) it is clearly a priori to complex
historical events.8

However, I don't believe you meant that... also there is a difference between the social and natural sciences.

Both require a different epistemology... so eh?

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 10:11 PM
I voted for everything but Skepticism, Infinitism, and Nihilism.

I think these are all valid basis, and requirements, for knowledge.

nate895
11-13-2009, 10:28 PM
I voted for everything but Skepticism, Infinitism, and Nihilism.

I think these are all valid basis, and requirements, for knowledge.

To a certain extent, I agree with you. I part ways when I am talking about how we ultimately know anything. I would say we ultimately know everything, and the only way we could know anything, because of a foundation in the Word of God. Since I have that coherent foundation of the Word of God, I would say we can determine certain parts of reality through empirical data, reasonable arguments, and other methods. However, ultimately the only way we can truly know anything is because its foundation lies in revelation from the omniscient Creator.

Edit: I argue that denial of a Creator God must lead, ultimately, to Nihilism of all stripes. However, one cannot be a true Nihilist, or one would risk the possibility of actually getting their way.

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 10:31 PM
To a certain extent, I agree with you. I part ways when I am talking about how we ultimately know anything. I would say we ultimately know everything, and the only way we could know anything, because of a foundation in the Word of God. Since I have that coherent foundation of the Word of God, I would say we can determine certain parts of reality through empirical data, reasonable arguments, and other methods. However, ultimately the only way we can truly know anything is because its foundation lies in revelation from the omniscient Creator.

Yet, do we not percieve the word through our senses? Do we not find it to be true through internal observation, and external observation of creation?

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 10:32 PM
Edit: I argue that denial of a Creator God must lead, ultimately, to Nihilism of all stripes. However, one cannot be a true Nihilist, or one would risk the possibility of actually getting their way.

On consideration, I am not sure that I do agree. One could be an atheist and believe what we observe through the senses, for example, is truth. Ultimately, assumptions must be made before observations of any kind can commence. Of course, I do believe that God is the basis for creation, but that does not mean that alternatives cannot be constructed.

I suppose I would say that God is the true reason for existance -- certainly I believe none of this would be possible without him, but that we can only arrive at an understanding of God through other means -- observations, considerations of self-evident truth, etc.

In a way, is not God's revelation an example of internal and external observation? His word being external, and the Holy Spirit being internal?

nate895
11-13-2009, 10:37 PM
Yet, do we not percieve the word through our senses? Do we not find it to be true through internal observation, and external observation of creation?

Yes, of course, the beginning and end of all knowledge is God. However, if God is not used as the basis upon which to base the reliability of our sense, then we are ultimately led to the impossible conclusion of Nihilism*. After all, it is entirely possible in a Naturalistic world that our senses are entirely unreliable because the evolution of our senses made it that way. Our perception of reality can be entirely false if that is the case. Therefore, God must be used as the foundation and correcter of all knowledge because He is the only who knows everything, and the only way we could know anything.

*I want to hear from our Nihilist friend.

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 10:51 PM
Yes, of course, the beginning and end of all knowledge is God. However, if God is not used as the basis upon which to base the reliability of our sense, then we are ultimately led to the impossible conclusion of Nihilism*. After all, it is entirely possible in a Naturalistic world that our senses are entirely unreliable because the evolution of our senses made it that way. Our perception of reality can be entirely false if that is the case. Therefore, God must be used as the foundation and correcter of all knowledge because He is the only who knows everything, and the only way we could know anything.

*I want to hear from our Nihilist friend.

Yet, to play devil's advocate, if we are to start by taking all observations, both internal and external, to be false, how are we to know that what we see in the Bible, or what the Holy Spirit communicates to us is true? That is, starting from scratch, if we make no assumptions, the revelations we think we percieve do not help us.

It seems to me that we do need a starting assumption. That starting assumption could be the idea that a God exists, and his nature implies that what we observe through the senses is real. Or, it could simply be that what we observe is real.

To be honest, following my thought process, I believe God exists through internal and external observation, reasoning, and because of what I believe to be self-evident truths. I am not sure a person could understand the meaning of "God", or assume his existance, without these things.

nate895
11-13-2009, 10:57 PM
Yet, to play devil's advocate, if we are to assume that all observations, both internal and external are false, how are we to know that what we see in the Bible, or what the Holy Spirit communicates to us is true?

We can't. We must assume that the Bible is true if true knowledge is indeed possible. If we don't believe true knowledge is possible, the Bible can't be proven, and neither could anything else, and we must live in a hopeless state, a literal hell on Earth. If we do believe true knowledge is possible, only the Bible provides the proper foundations for that knowledge.

nate895
11-13-2009, 11:03 PM
It seems to me that we do need a starting assumption. That starting assumption could be the idea that a God exists, and his nature implies that what we observe through the senses is real. Or, it could simply be that what we observe is real.

To be honest, following my thought process, I believe God exists through internal and external observation, reasoning, and because of what I believe to be self-evident truths. I am not sure a person could understand the meaning of "God", or assume his existance, without these things.

I'd argue that the mere starting assumption that God exists is fraught with problems, but it is a reasonable start. The reason I say it is fraught with problems is because we would then have to be arbitrary as to God's properties, whereas a Biblical starting point includes his properties as part of the presupposition.

As for why we come to the conclusion and starting point that God exists, we are able to do that because God has implanted knowledge of Himself in all of us, so deep thought on the subject leads to no other conclusion besides His existence.

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 11:10 PM
I'd argue that the mere starting assumption that God exists is fraught with problems, but it is a reasonable start. The reason I say it is fraught with problems is because we would then have to be arbitrary as to God's properties, whereas a Biblical starting point includes his properties as part of the presupposition.

Why the Bible? Why not believe in the Koran, a book of wicca, a Superman comic, or a science textbook? It seems to me that we must differentiate between texts by considering how they match with fundamental truths, as well as reason, and internal and external observations. We can't just pick a text and start from there.

pcosmar
11-13-2009, 11:10 PM
Revelatory: God's revelation is foundational to our beliefs

I believe this would be closest. I had heard, but considered myself agnostic for a long time.
It was not until a "point of revelation" that I became a believer.

Oddly it was somewhat he same with politics.
First a wakening and then finding out about Dr. Paul.

nate895
11-13-2009, 11:22 PM
Why the Bible? Why not believe in the Koran, a book of wicca, a Superman comic, or a science textbook? It seems to me that we must differentiate between texts by considering how they match with fundamental truths, as well as reason, and internal and external observations. We can't just pick a text and start from there.

The Bible is a unique book in history. The Bible is the only book that claims to be God's Word, was written over a millennium and a half, has God act in history, and predicts specific future events. The Bible also demands itself to be the starting point, with verses such as Colossians 2:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:2-3&version=ESV), John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&version=ESV), 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:4-5&version=ESV), and others. When one takes the Bible as the starting point, the world becomes coherent and knowledge is truly possible.

tremendoustie
11-13-2009, 11:39 PM
The Bible is a unique book in history. The Bible is the only book that claims to be God's Word, was written over a millennium and a half, has God act in history, and predicts specific future events.


All of these are external observations, are they not?

You are justifying your belief in the Bible, by showing how it stacks up well under observation, not only of itself, but in comparison with other texts, and in comparison with history. This implies that your first assumption is that that which you observe is true: For example, that the Bible has predicted future events, which later came to pass. Because of this external evidence, and other evidence, you conclude that the Bible is the truth.



The Bible also demands itself to be the starting point, with verses such as Colossians 2:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:2-3&version=ESV), John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&version=ESV), 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:4-5&version=ESV), and others. When one takes the Bible as the starting point, the world becomes coherent and knowledge is truly possible.

It seems to me that these passages claim that the Bible contains essential truth, not that one must assume that the Bible is true a-priori, or that it would be wrong to conclude that it is true from other evidence.

nate895
11-14-2009, 12:07 AM
All of these are external observations, are they not?

You are justifying your belief in the Bible, by showing how it stacks up well under observation, not only of itself, but in comparison with other texts, and in comparison with history. This implies that your first assumption is that that which you observe is true: For example, that the Bible has predicted future events, which later came to pass. Because of this external evidence, and other evidence, you conclude that the Bible is the truth.

I should clarify my apologetic position at this point. I am a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist. I do not discount the value of evidence, I just say that the evidence must be seen in the proper light in order to be effective. The evidence I presented only makes sense in a Christian worldview.


It seems to me that these passages claim that the Bible contains essential truth, not that one must assume that the Bible is true a-priori, or that it would be wrong to conclude that it is true from other evidence.

I can also bolster those passages with Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 26:4-5, and Romans 3:4. If we are to let God be true and every man a liar, are we not to assume a priori that God's Word is true? Also, if we are to merely prove God and work on that starting point, what is to prevent us from falling for the myths of some false "god?" Scripture must be a guider and a teacher about the ultimate truth of God. See also Book I, Chapter 6 of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (link (http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/entire.html)).

newbitech
11-14-2009, 12:46 AM
Platonic Realism - There is more space between your ears than you are willing to admit.

tremendoustie
11-14-2009, 12:51 AM
I should clarify my apologetic position at this point. I am a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist. I do not discount the value of evidence, I just say that the evidence must be seen in the proper light in order to be effective. The evidence I presented only makes sense in a Christian worldview.


On the contrary, you were justifying your selection of the Bible, rather than other texts, by using evidence you obtained by observation. I was asking why you are not a Batmanian or a Mohammedan, and you replied with evidence, which showed the Bible, and therefore Christ, to be superior to these alternatives. In order for these reasons to select Christianity to make any sense at all, they must not only hold if one has already done so.

I certainly agree that without God, observation itself would not exist. However, that does not mean that we do not arrive at our understanding of God through observation.



I can also bolster those passages with Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 26:4-5, and Romans 3:4. If we are to let God be true and every man a liar, are we not to assume a priori that God's Word is true? Also, if we are to merely prove God and work on that starting point, what is to prevent us from falling for the myths of some false "god?"


I would say the dangers of false Gods are greater in your approach than mine. One might begin by selecting any number of false gods or their respective texts as a basis for truth, if there is no critera to be applied.

It is only by examining the evidence -- the texts themselves, internal and external observation, and through reason, that we recognize these other gods, and texts, to be false, and recognize the Bible as the truth.

In short, if we are to say that there is no reason to select the Bible over any other text, we are all at very great danger of falsehood. If there is a reason to select the Bible over another text, that reason is a more fundamental assumption than the Bible.

It is no negative statement about the Bible to say that it is not a fundamental assumption. Often in science, for example, the true fundamental principle, which ties together all others, and which is really at the heart of a particular subject, is only discovered after years of inquiry.

Kludge
11-14-2009, 12:58 AM
"Post-Nihilism"/Absurdism

Knowledge is possible because it can't be "disproven" without creating a paradox ("All we know is we know nothing").

That doesn't stop me from believing it doesn't exist. (<-- Also a paradox)*∞

tremendoustie
11-14-2009, 02:44 AM
"Post-Nihilism"/Absurdism

Knowledge is possible because it can't be "disproven" without creating a paradox ("All we know is we know nothing").

That doesn't stop me from believing it doesn't exist. (<-- Also a paradox)*∞

Sounds like both Nihilism and Post-Nihilism are self contradictory. If you really want to take a neuteral stance, you could always say that you don't know how much we can really know.

It's a litttle hard to deal with reality without assuming something. You might as well make one, ya know ;). It sounds like you believe in logic. That's a start.

nate895
11-14-2009, 12:46 PM
I would say the dangers of false Gods are greater in your approach than mine. One might begin by selecting any number of false gods or their respective texts as a basis for truth, if there is no critera to be applied.

It is only by examining the evidence -- the texts themselves, internal and external observation, and through reason, that we recognize these other gods, and texts, to be false, and recognize the Bible as the truth.

In short, if we are to say that there is no reason to select the Bible over any other text, we are all at very great danger of falsehood. If there is a reason to select the Bible over another text, that reason is a more fundamental assumption than the Bible.

It is no negative statement about the Bible to say that it is not a fundamental assumption. Often in science, for example, the true fundamental principle, which ties together all others, and which is really at the heart of a particular subject, is only discovered after years of inquiry.

There is always the danger of falling for a false god, but we also have to look at Van Tillian Presuppositionalism's theology and goals. Presuppositionalists are Calvinists, we believe has a certain people whom He has ordained unto eternal life before the foundations of the Earth were laid, and they will believe in due time. The goal of our system is not to convince everyone to become a Christian through positively establishing the Christian faith by evidence, our goal is to first make Christianity a rational belief, and second it is to make it the only choice by deconstructing all the philosophies of men. We do not show the superiority of Christianity on the basis of positive evidence, but on the basis of the absolute absurdity of other religions.

Take the Muhammadan example. In the Koran, there is a Sura that starts by saying that Allah wants to set an example to allow fathers to marry their adopted son's wives, and so Muhammad marries his adopted son's wife. However, Mecca gets in an uproar because this is socially unacceptable. Because of this, Allah tells Muhammad that it was acceptable for him to marry his adopted son's now ex-wife because you can't adopt children, thereby making Muhammad's socially acceptable because he didn't marry his son's wife. So, Allah made an example, only to make that example null and void. Allah, like the Mormon god(s), is a political god that changes his rules depending on the social and poltical circumstances.

Kludge
11-14-2009, 12:53 PM
Sounds like both Nihilism and Post-Nihilism are self contradictory. If you really want to take a neuteral stance, you could always say that you don't know how much we can really know.

That's what absurdism is. I don't know what I know, and every statement I make is just as absurd as the next. I believe it's the proper end to being an agnostic atheist. Every agnostic atheist should also be an absurdist. If you're going to say God may exist even though you personally believe otherwise, you might as well say nothing may exist.


It's a litttle hard to deal with reality without assuming something. You might as well make one, ya know ;). It sounds like you believe in logic. That's a start.

Why bother with knowledge if I can't confirm it exists? It's why I ended up hating history. I'd "learn" what happened to a lot of irrelevant dead people 15 centuries ago and then one week later I'd come across an "alternative theory." Pretty soon, I realize there are books and books disputing my "knowledge" and even the authors disagreeing with the first theory disagree with each other on their alternative! Of course, all of them are basing their theories on such a scant amount of evidence, any of them could be right, so why the Hell discuss it at all? If the point of learning history is to gain the wisdom and experiences of those before us, why would we even consider talking about a subject in which there is no hard evidence of intentions nor actions.

So there I was in my history classes making assumptions based on one set of "facts" which may or may not be factual. Hell, I'm told everybody's imperfect, and we see what good democracy brings with millions of idiots deciding as one unit what's right and wrong, true and false. Take that a step further when I make the realization I can't actually prove, beyond all doubt, that I'm interpreting the data my senses are giving me correctly and my senses may not even be properly functioning. Throw in a theory suggesting we're a brain in a vat or one of trillions of "threads" in a Great Brain which can alter our environment, "Laws," and memories, and, well... fuck it. Sure, a "Great Brain" sounds ridiculous, but I have no evidence against the theory because all I have are my imperfect senses, imperfect mind, and an environment which may or may not exist. I can't say a "Great Brain" theory is any less absurd than one in which an immaterial and immortal entity feels lonely and creates a huge lot of empty space to place a few billion imperfect humans on one planet to then amuse himself by impregnating a "virgin" with a "son" whose primary goal in his life on Earth is to kill himself -- Lot's wife (the wife of one who may or may not have humped his daughters, depending on which religion you subscribe to)... pillar of salt.... FFS, a pillar... of... salt! A PILLAR OF SALT! What The Fuck! And -- and then... the atheists.... Mass just fucking exists. It came out of nowhere and has just been chillin' out for aeons, but still, you should believe that mass cannot be created nor destroyed. Why? Science says so. We've PROVEN it! Forget the obvious flaw. MASS JUST EXISTS! Get over it. FFS, we don't even all agree on what many words mean! "Liberal" can have an opposite meaning depending on who we're talking to and they're both "right." And yet, you believe we're capable of determining truth? HA!

nate895
11-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Why bother with knowledge if I can't confirm it exists? It's why I ended up hating history. I'd "learn" what happened to a lot of irrelevant dead people 15 centuries ago and then one week later I'd come across an "alternative theory." Pretty soon, I realize there are books and books disputing my "knowledge" and even the authors disagreeing with the first theory disagree with each other on their alternative! Of course, all of them are basing their theories on such a scant amount of evidence, any of them could be right, so why the Hell discuss it at all? If the point of learning history is to gain the wisdom and experiences of those before us, why would we even consider talking about a subject in which there is no hard evidence of intentions nor actions.

So there I was in my history classes making assumptions based on one set of "facts" which may or may not be factual. Hell, I'm told everybody's imperfect, and we see what good democracy brings with millions of idiots deciding as one unit what's right and wrong, true and false. Take that a step further when I make the realization I can't actually prove, beyond all doubt, that I'm interpreting the data my senses are giving me correctly and my senses may not even be properly functioning. Throw in a theory suggesting we're a brain in a vat or one of trillions of "threads" in a Great Brain which can alter our environment, "Laws," and memories, and, well... fuck it. Sure, a "Great Brain" sounds ridiculous, but I have no evidence against the theory because all I have are my imperfect senses, imperfect mind, and an environment which may or may not exist. I can't say a "Great Brain" theory is any less absurd than one in which an immaterial and immortal entity feels lonely and creates a huge lot of empty space to place a few billion imperfect humans on one planet to then amuse himself by impregnating a "virgin" with a "son" whose primary goal in his life on Earth is to kill himself -- Lot's wife (the wife of one who may or may not have humped his daughters, depending on which religion you subscribe to)... pillar of salt.... FFS, a pillar... of... salt! A PILLAR OF SALT! What The Fuck! And -- and then... the atheists.... Mass just fucking exists. It came out of nowhere and has just been chillin' out for aeons, but still, you should believe that mass cannot be created nor destroyed. Why? Science says so. We've PROVEN it! Forget the obvious flaw. MASS JUST EXISTS! Get over it. FFS, we don't even all agree on what many words mean! "Liberal" can have an opposite meaning depending on who we're talking to and they're both "right." And yet, you believe we're capable of determining truth? HA!

This is where the absurdity comes in. If you were to actually live based on this assumption, Kludge, why should we do anything at all? What is the point of this political enterprise? Why even get up in the morning? After all, we can't even know if we are going to exist the next moment. All of the sudden, the entire universe can go "belly-up," the laws of physics turned on their head, and everything just falls apart because gravity doesn't work anymore. You must live as if you believe there is a Creator God who controls the universe in a rational way, and we are at least somewhat capable of understanding how He upholds it on a day-to-day basis. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that as how we should live our lives. At least my beliefs provide a coherent reason to go about my daily life, learn new things, and have goals for tomorrow. God will uphold the universe and the same rules that applied yesterday, apply today, and will apply tomorrow.