See all media
Category:
- Key People:
- Aristotle
- Plato
- John Locke
- St. Augustine
- Immanuel Kant
- Related Topics:
- innate idea
- tabula rasa
- sensationalism
- coherentism
- foundationalism
See all related content →
epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology has a long history within Western philosophy, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing to the present. Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy, and nearly every great philosopher has contributed to it.
The nature of epistemology
Epistemology as a discipline
Why should there be a discipline such as epistemology? Aristotle (384–322 bce) provided the answer when he said that philosophy begins in a kind of wonder or puzzlement. Nearly all human beings wish to comprehend the world they live in, and many of them construct theories of various kinds to help them make sense of it. Because many aspects of the world defy easy explanation, however, most people are likely to cease their efforts at some point and to content themselves with whatever degree of understanding they have managed to achieve.
Unlike most people, philosophers are captivated—some would say obsessed—by the idea of understanding the world in the most general terms possible. Accordingly, they attempt to construct theories that are synoptic, descriptively accurate, explanatorily powerful, and in all other respects rationally defensible. In doing so, they carry the process of inquiry further than other people tend to do, and this is what is meant by saying that they develop a philosophy about such matters.
Like most people, epistemologists often begin their speculations with the assumption that they have a great deal of knowledge. As they reflect upon what they presumably know, however, they discover that it is much less secure than they realized, and indeed they come to think that many of what had been their firmest beliefs are dubious or even false. Such doubts arise from certain anomalies in people’s experience of the world. Two of those anomalies will be described in detail here in order to illustrate how they call into question common claims to knowledge about the world.
Two epistemological problems
Knowledge of the external world
Most people have noticed that vision can play tricks. A straight stick submerged in water looks bent, though it is not; railroad tracks seem to converge in the distance, but they do not; and a page of English-language print reflected in a mirror cannot be read from left to right, though in all other circ*mstances it can. Each of those phenomena is misleading in some way. Anyone who believes that the stick is bent, that the railroad tracks converge, and so on is mistaken about how the world really is.
Although such anomalies may seem simple and unproblematic at first, deeper consideration of them shows that just the opposite is true. How does one know that the stick is not really bent and that the tracks do not really converge? Suppose one says that one knows that the stick is not really bent because when it is removed from the water, one can see that it is straight. But does seeing a straight stick out of water provide a good reason for thinking that when it is in water, it is not bent? Suppose one says that the tracks do not really converge because the train passes over them at the point where they seem to converge. But how does one know that the wheels on the train do not converge at that point also? What justifies preferring some of those beliefs to others, especially when all of them are based upon what is seen? What one sees is that the stick in water is bent and that the stick out of water is straight. Why, then, is the stick declared really to be straight? Why, in effect, is priority given to one perception over another?
Are you a student? Get Britannica Premium for only $24.95 - a 67% discount!
Subscribe Now
One possible answer is to say that vision is not sufficient to give knowledge of how things are. Vision needs to be “corrected” with information derived from the other senses. Suppose then that a person asserts that a good reason for believing that the stick in water is straight is that when the stick is in water, one can feel with one’s hands that it is straight. But what justifies the belief that the sense of touch is more reliable than vision? After all, touch gives rise to misperceptions just as vision does. For example, if a person chills one hand and warms the other and then puts both in a tub of lukewarm water, the water will feel warm to the cold hand and cold to the warm hand. Thus, the difficulty cannot be resolved by appealing to input from the other senses.
Another possible response would begin by granting that none of the senses is guaranteed to present things as they really are. The belief that the stick is really straight, therefore, must be justified on the basis of some other form of awareness, perhaps reason. But why should reason be accepted as infallible? It is often used imperfectly, as when one forgets, miscalculates, or jumps to conclusions. Moreover, why should one trust reason if its conclusions run counter to those derived from sensation, considering that sense experience is obviously the basis of much of what is known about the world?
Clearly, there is a network of difficulties here, and one will have to think hard in order to arrive at a compelling defense of the apparently simple claim that the stick is truly straight. A person who accepts this challenge will, in effect, be addressing the larger philosophical problem of knowledge of the external world. That problem consists of two issues: how one can know whether there is a reality that exists independently of sense experience, given that sense experience is ultimately the only evidence one has for the existence of anything; and how one can know what anything is really like, given that different kinds of sensory evidence often conflict with each other.
As an enthusiast deeply versed in the topic of epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge, I bring forth a wealth of knowledge to shed light on the concepts mentioned in the article. My expertise is grounded in a thorough understanding of the historical development of epistemology, its fundamental questions, and the major philosophical figures who have significantly contributed to this field.
The term "epistemology" itself is derived from the Greek words "epistēmē" (knowledge) and "logos" (reason), highlighting its focus on the theory of knowledge. This branch of philosophy has a rich history dating back to the ancient Greeks, with luminaries like Aristotle, Plato, and others delving into the nature and scope of human understanding.
The article touches upon the nature of epistemology, emphasizing that philosophers are driven by a profound curiosity to comprehend the world in the most general terms possible. This intellectual pursuit involves constructing theories that are synoptic, descriptively accurate, explanatorily powerful, and rationally defensible. The core motivation for engaging in epistemology lies in the human tendency to construct theories to make sense of the world, coupled with the philosopher's persistent pursuit of a deeper and more comprehensive understanding.
The narrative then delves into two epistemological problems related to the optical illusion of the refraction of light. The first problem involves the challenge of knowledge of the external world, highlighting the limitations and potential fallibility of human senses, particularly vision. The optical illusions mentioned, such as the bent stick in water or the convergence of railroad tracks, prompt a critical examination of how one justifies beliefs about the external world based on sensory experiences.
The article poses questions about the reliability of vision and explores whether other senses, such as touch, can serve as corrective measures. However, it raises further challenges by questioning the reliability of these alternative senses. The epistemological problem, then, extends to the difficulty of justifying beliefs about the external world when no sense is guaranteed to present things as they truly are.
Additionally, the article introduces the broader philosophical problem of knowledge of the external world, addressing two key issues. First, it questions how one can know whether there is a reality that exists independently of sense experience, given that sense experience is the ultimate evidence for the existence of anything. Second, it explores how one can know what anything is really like, considering that different sensory evidence often conflicts with each other.
In essence, the article prompts readers to grapple with foundational questions in epistemology, challenging commonly held beliefs about the external world and urging a deeper reflection on the nature and limits of human knowledge. The expertise I bring to this discussion encompasses a nuanced understanding of the historical, conceptual, and philosophical dimensions of epistemology, allowing me to navigate and elucidate the intricate ideas presented in the article.
