Epistemology: How We Know

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, limitation,
and validity of knowledge. It deals specifically with theories of knowledge, systematic efforts to
explain the nature and content of thought and to describe the process by which human beings
acquire reliable knowledge. The term epistemology identifies the philosophical activity
directed toward questions about how and what a knower knows.
Epistemology is intimately involved in the development and analysis of criteria (the plural
for of the word criterion). Criteria are the standards by which something is measured or judged.
To establish a basis for comparing and evaluating judgments about the accuracy or extent of
human knowledge, the philosopher must analyze the various criteria used in the process of
knowing. The nature of what can be known and the process of knowing it can be fruitfully
discussed only if we can establish precise criteria. Each of the alternative theories of knowing
presented in this chapter should be critically analyzed to determine the adequacy of the basic
criteria on which it depends.
For many human beings, the simple and direct way of knowing through trial and error
results in an epistemology that is relatively unsophisticated by philosophical standards. It si mply
works, and why or how it works is not something to be analyzed or pondered. This is not a bad
way for most of us to ricochet through life and accumulate from personal experience what we
think of as knowledge. However, trial-and-error procedures involve the distinct possibility that the
consequences might be disastrous or fatal. Trying again may not turn out to be a viable option.
Trial and error has its staunch adherents, but there has been a long and intensive search for
other ways of knowing that are more rigorous, more systematic, and more dependable.
In fact, since at least the time of Plato (in his Theaetetus, for instance) the classic
philosophical definition of knowledge has been justified true belief. That is to say, knowledge is
more than mere opinion that may or may not be correct. Knowledge involves beliefs or
assertions for which you have reasons or warrant. In one of his dialogues, Plato illustrated the
difference between a mere opinion (that turns out to be true) and knowledge by comparing a
blind man who comes to a fork in the road and just happens to take the right path to his
destination and a man who can actually see which path will lead him to his destination.
As this chapter will demonstrate, philosophers give different justifications or warrants for
their assertions. For instance, some insist on logical demonstration, while others depend on sense
experience. There are those who argue that our beliefs make up a web of interpretations that
organize our experience; pull on one belief and the whole web moves. That means that the
project of finding warrant for our beliefs, whether through reason or experience, becomes
problematic since the criteria for recognizing adequate interpretations from inadequate ones
seem to be spun out of the same silk. If there are no nonarbitrary criteria by which we can judge
all systems of belief, then we seem to be left with relativism no knowledge (in the classic sense),
just each to his own web.












Scientific
Method
Empiricism
(sense, evidence,
induction)
Rationalism
(mind, reason,
deduction)
To provide an initial contrast from which further analysis may proceed, we present a
sample continuum featuring three theories of knowledge that have made strong claims for
priority in Western philosophy. The issue can be framed between the epistemological
alternatives proposed by the empiricists and the rationalists, with the scientific method
occupying a position somewhere between the two.
All three might agree that knowledge comes from the relation of the mind to
experience, but they differ on the issue of where to place the primary emphasis.


The Classical Positions: Empiricism and Rationalism

Empiricism

The search for knowledge that is both absolute and certain has been fervent and
continuous. However, since at least the time of Aristotle, there has been a strong
epistemological tradition based solely on human experience, not directed toward the possibility
of achieving absolute knowledge. This tradition is exemplified in the doctrine of empiricism.
Empiricists argue that it is unreasonable to set a goal of absolute and all-inclusive knowledge
especially when there is close at hand the power to increase practical knowledge by slower but
dependable methods. Empiricists are content to build a system of knowledge that has a high
probability of being true even though its absolute certainty cannot be guaranteed. Empiricists
find that high probability is a stable and realistic foundation for the knowledge accessible to
human beings.
Empiricists insist that human knowledge is acquired from experience that it is a
posteriori, or postexperiential. If we were trying to convince an empiricist that something exists,
the empiricist would say, Show me! On points of fact she would have to be assured by her own
experience. If we told her that there is a tiger in her bathtub, she would first demand that we tell
her how we arrived at such a conclusion. If we explained that we saw the tiger in the bathtub,
the empiricist would listen to this report of our experiences, but she would accept it only on the
grounds that she or something else could check the accuracy of our claim by taking a firsthand
look for herself.
Two aspects of empirical theory are brought out in the illustration. The first is the
distinction between the knower and the thing known. The knower is the subject, and the thing
known is the object. There is a real world of eternal facts and objects that the person can
perceive. Second, the truth or verification of facts or objects depends on their being
experienced by other human beings. To be meaningful to the empiricist, statements about the
existence or nonexistence of anything must meet the criterion of public verifiability.
A more complicated problem arises when statements are made about objects or
events no longer available for direct verification. When it is asserted that George Washington
chopped down his fathers cherry tree, empiricists would have to be convinced of at least three
things: first, that the words George Washington and cherry tree refer to the kind of things that
one does experience; second, that someone was there and actually observed the event; and
third, that if empiricists had been there themselves, they also could have observed the event.
Another aspect of empiricism is its dependence on the principle of regularity, Knowledge
of the natural world is based on a perception of the regular way in which things behave. Nature
is orderly. By describing the way things have happened in the past or by describing the uni form
ways in which similar things behave in the present, the empiricist feels justified in making
predictions about the probable behavior of things in the future.
Besides appealing to regularity, the empiricist invokes the principle resemblance.
Resemblance means that those phenomena that are experienced as identical or similar really
are enough alike to warrant making generalizations about them. If we learn that one banana is
tasty and nutritious, we want to be reasonably sure that the next object that looks and tastes like
what we call a banana is not going to be fatally toxic. The more experience we have with
banana-like things, the more reliable is our knowledge about what bananas are and what they
mean in our experience. Resemblance involves the human ability to abstract likeness from
distinctive objects or perceptions.
Typically, empiricists base their theory of knowledge on the experiences provided by our
five senses. John Locke, has been called the father of British empiricism, proposed a theory of
knowledge in which the features we have discussed are combined in a clear fashion. Locke
claimed that the human mind at birth is like a smooth wax tablet (tabula rasa in Latin) on which
sensory data etch themselves. As life progresses, more and more sensory impressions are
transcribed. From the combination and comparison of sensations, complex ideas are produced.
Locke viewed the mind as a receptacle that receives and store sensations. Knowledge results
from the natural activity of the mind as it combines basic sensations. It is like a pantry with one
opening (the senses) through which cans (sensations) enter to be kept and rearranged on the
shelves.
Those who insist that all knowledge can be reduced to sensory experience and who
further insist that what cannot be traced to specific sense experiences is not true to knowledge
are called sensationalists, or radical empiricists. Modern radical empiricists might paraphrase
Locke in the following manner. Knowledge is the result of a complex neurochemical process in
which external objects stimulate one or more sense organs and cause a material or electrical
change in the physical organ called the brain.

Critiques of Empiricism

1.
Empiricism is grounded in experience. But what does the term experience mean? At
times it refers only to the stimulation of the senses. At other times it appears to refer to a sensation
plus a judgment. As a concept, experience does not directly refer to the objective reality so
dear to the empiricists. The critics point out that there is nothing inherently or necessarily self-
evident about facts. Facts do not of themselves point out their interrelationships to a neutral
perceiver. When critically analyzed, experience is found to be far too ambiguous a term on
which to base a systematic theory of knowledge.

2.
A theory that places such a heavy emphasis on sense perception does not make
adequate allowance for the fact that human senses are limited and imperfect. Our senses are
often deceived, a fact that even the empiricists themselves recognize. Empiricism is not well
equipped to separate fact from fancy.

3.
Empiricism gives no certainty. What is only probable knowledge is, by the same token,
wholly questionable knowledge. Unless we mount guard and have an unbroken sequence of
sensory experiences, we can never be sure that the automobile we drove into the garage at
night is the same one we drive out in the morning.

Rationalism

Advocates of rationalism are intent on attaining knowledge that is absolute and certain.
In their pursuit of such knowledge they start with propositions that are self-evident. The basic
axioms on which they build their system are derived from ideas that are claimed to be clear,
distinct, and certain to the human mind. The human mind has the capacity to know these
ideas, but human beings do not create them or learn them though experience. The ideas are
somehow there as part of basic reality, and the human mind, because it partakes of this
reality, thereby contains the ideas. It is in this sense that the mind reasons. The rationalist argues
that since the mind comprehends principles, the principles must therefore exist; that is, they
must be true and real. If principles do not exist, it is impossible for human beings to conceive that
they do. Principles are regarded as a priori, or preexperiential, and therefore principles are not
developed from experience; on the contrary, experience can be understood only in the light of
principles.
Plato provided the classical expression of rationalism. In a dialogue called the Meno, he
argued that, in order to learn something, one must discover a truth one does not already know.
But if the person does not already know the truth, how can he possibly recognize that it is the
truth? Plato contended that a person cannot tell whether a proposition is true when he learns it
unless he already knows it to be true. Furthermore, a person cannot learn what he does know
since he already knows it. The conclusion is that people do not learn anything; they only
remember what they already know. All the basic and universal principles are preexistent in
human minds. Sense experience can at best merely stimulate memory and bring to
consciousness the knowledge that is in the mind all the time.
Platos theory of knowledge is integrated with his stand on the nature of what is
ultimately real. For him, basic reality is composed of ideas, or principles. These ideas he called
Forms. Beauty, truth, and justice are among the Forms that exist absolutely and changelessly
for all time and for everyone. People can come to know the Forms through the process of
rational intuition an activity peculiar to the mind. The proof that Forms really exist is
established by the fact that we can conceive of them. Thus, Plato viewed knowledge as a
discovery that takes place during the orderly process of rational thought.
Geometry is one of the rationalists favorite illustrations. It is argued that the basic axioms
of geometry (for example, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points) are clear
and distinct ideas that human beings just know. From the basic axioms a system of subaxioms
can be deduced. The result is a formal and consistent network of propositions that are logically
included within the limits set by the original self-evident axioms.
Ren Descartes, a seventh-century mathematician and philosopher, made a strong
case for the rational approach to knowledge. Living in a period of ideological ferment, he had
an intense desire to establish his beliefs on a foundation of absolute certainty. To accomplish this
goal, he undertook to subject his knowledge to a most exacting test. He applied the method of
rational doubt. He decided that if he found any reason to doubt a category or principle of
knowledge he would set that category or principle aside. He would accept only that to which
he could raise no objections.
Descartes considered the knowledge produced by the senses, but, because he
admitted that the senses can be deceived (as in dreams or hallucinations), he was forced to
conclude that sense data are unreliable. He tested his belief in an all-powerful God, but here
too he found he could conceive of a God who might deceive human beings. Rigorously
pursuing his goal of absolute certainty, Descartes was forced to question the reliability of
perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and traditionally established truths as acceptable sources of
knowledge. They were all judged to admit of possible exceptions. They were flawed. The only
thing that he could not doubt was his own existence; he could not doubt that he was doubting.
Even if he was deceived into thinking that he existed, he reasoned that the deceit itself implied
someone being deceived. Descartes rock of certainty was expressed in the Latin phrase
cognito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am).
The story is told of an American philosopher whose class was studying the problem of
existence. The students were asked to read Descartes Meditations. The next day a worried and
haggard student came to the professor with the complaint that he had been up all night trying
to decide whether or not he really existed. Tell me, please tell me, do I exist? The professor
considered the question and then asked, Who wants to know?
In his attempt to explain why the one truth ( I think, therefore I am) is true, Descartes
concluded that he had been convinced because of the clarity and distinctness of the idea. On
this ground he reasoned that all truth can be recognized by the clarity and distinctness with
which it occurs to the mind: Whatever is clearly and distinctly conceived is true.
What has been demonstrated by these examples of rationalist philosophy is that
absolutely certain and reliable knowledge is believed to derive not from sense experience but
rather from the realm of the mind. (And in rationalism mind is not synonymous with brain.)
Both Plato and Descartes claimed that true knowledge is already within us in the form of ideas,
which we do not acquire (learn) but which are innate. Rationalists further maintain that the
world we come to know by the method of rational intuition is the real world. Truth and falsity
reside in ideas and not in things.

Critiques of Rationalism

1.
Rational knowledge is constructed out of ideas that are neither visible nor tangible. The
existence of self-evident or innate ideas has not been affirmed by all human beings with equal
force and conviction. Furthermore, there is a notable lack of agreement among rationalists
themselves on the basic truths from which they reason. Plato, St. Augustine, and Descartes
developed quite distinctive rational theories.

2.
Relatedly, genuine starting points, like Descartes cognito, ergo sum, do not tell us too
much and cannot get us very far. To develop a body of truths from such skimpy beginnings,
rationalists are accused of smuggling in ideas from other sources (such as experience or
tradition). Often these ideas are principles that are self-evident only to a particular culture or
group.

3.
Many thoughtful people have found it extremely difficult to apply rationalistic concepts
to the practical world of affairs. The tendency toward abstractness and the tendency to doubt
o negate the validity of sensory experience have been roundly criticized. Sophisticated critics
are likely to complain that the rationalist treats ideas or concepts as if they were somehow
objective things. To devalue sensory experience, to de-emphasize the importance of physical
entities, and then to substitute a nebulous set of abstractions is judged to be a highly
questionable method of acquitting reliable knowledge.

4.
Rational theories fail to account for the vast change and increase in human knowledge
over the years. Manu ideas that were self-evident at one time are no longer accorded any
respectability. At one time in history, the idea that the earth is the center of the solar system was
almost universally accepted as a self-evident proposition.