determining Epistimology

Post Reply New Topic

The matter of Epistemology (the consideration of knowledge, its nature, and how it is to be obtained) is one of the key consideration of philosophy.

So thus I would put forward the consideration of what an adequate comprehensive theory of knowledge would be.
Or at the very least what sort of things may contribute to figuring this matter and what could be done to help close in the matter

I would think that such a theory should cover how people would come to gain knowledge, how people would come to gain awareness that they indeed do know something, how one would come to know that they know the means to knowing something, and how they would know this overarching epistemology.

I would also contend that an important means of screening what may be an at least potentially workable theory, would be to consider, under the rules of such a theory, would such a theory allow its conceiver to have knowledge of theory.

Hi Yelekam

I don't have time right now to respond to your post as it deserves, so just a couple of brief comments regarding the theory of how we obtain knowledge:

It is so exciting to live in a time when we are finally charting the neurological connections between human sense perception and human analysis of what we perceive. IMO this will contribute immeasurably to our understanding of why, faced with the same "naive reality" situation, we each react differently. In time, we might create AIs who can help us understand each other in "real time" communications. But then, I'm a sci-fi buff.

What I wish people would understand about epistemology, however, is what it means to our conceptions of "truth" and "reality." Nowadays, most "educated" westerners equate scientific findings with "truth." It irks me that those people do NOT recognize that scientific findings, like the findings of our unsupplemented biological senses, are limited by (i) the detection ranges of the tools used in making those findings (e.g., the range of resolution of microscopes, not to mention which electro-magnetic phenomena they can and cannot detect in the first place); and (ii) the detection and analytical ranges of the human brains which interpret those phenomena. So as our tools for detection and analysis change, so does scientific "truth." And until we invent sensory and brain augments (or bioenhance or whatever), we cannot see beyond the limits of our human brains, when even homing pigeons can.

Finally, it frustrates and grieves me that people are NOT more open to the "magic" out there. When we know today that invisibility cloaks are "real" and not just imaginary "magic," how can people be so dogmatic about "truth."