197. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? — B

Most of us probably ask and also hear that question often. There is something human about wanting to know, to have knowledge. In fact, there is a branch of philosophy called epistemology that focuses on the theory of knowledge — its methods, validity, and scope. This week’s triptych will explore this question: “How do you know that?” Or put another way: “How do you know what you know?”

This post focuses on knowledge. How do we KNOW? What is knowledge? My online search landed on an essay with the title “Theory of Knowledge” with no identified source. The gleanings that follow add to our exploration of the question.

“This account, known as the tripartite theory of knowledge, analyzes knowledge as justified true belief. The tripartite theory says that if you believe something, with justification, and it is true, then you know it; otherwise, you do not. The first condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is belief. Unless one believes a thing, one cannot know it. Even if something is true, and one has excellent reasons for believing that it is true, one cannot know it without believing it.

“The second condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is truth. If one knows a thing, then it must be true. No matter how well justified or sincere a belief, if it is not true, then it cannot constitute knowledge. If a long-held belief is discovered to be false, then one must concede that what was thought to be known was in fact not known. What is false cannot be known; knowledge must be knowledge of the truth.

“The third condition for knowledge is justification. In order to know a thing, it is not enough to merely correctly believe it to be true; one must also have a good reason for doing so. Lucky guesses cannot constitute knowledge; we can only know what we have good reason to believe.”

“Of course, we learn a lot of things from books, from the media, and from other people. To process information from these sources, however, we must already know many things: how to read, how to reason, whom to trust.”

There are two traditions concerning the ultimate source of knowledge: empiricism and rationalism. ”Empiricists hold that all of our knowledge is ultimately derived from our senses or our experiences. They therefore deny the existence of innate knowledge, i.e. knowledge that we possess from birth. Empiricism fits well with the scientific world-view that places an emphasis on experimentation and observation. … Rationalists hold that at least some of our knowledge is derived from reason alone, and that reason plays an important role in the acquisition of all of our knowledge.”

“Whatever we learn, according to empiricists, we learn through perception. Knowledge without experience, with the possible exception of trivial semantic and logical truths, is impossible. … In its most radical forms, empiricism holds that all of our knowledge is derived from the senses.”

“Rationalism holds, in contrast to empiricism, that it is reason, not experience, that is most important for our acquisition of knowledge. … The rationalist might argue that there are some truths that, though grounded in part in experience, cannot be derived from experience alone. Aesthetic truths, and truths about causation, for instance, seem to many to be of this kind. Two people may observe the same object, yet reach contradictory views as to its beauty or ugliness. This shows that aesthetic qualities are not presented to us by our senses, but rather are overlaid onto experience by reason.”

Q: What is your basis for knowing?

Check out: https://dialogue4us.com.