Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A. (Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D.
Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
Mrs Sudha Rani Maheshwari, M.Sc (Zoology), B.Ed,
Former PrincipalA.K.P.I.College, Roorkee, India
Study of the origin, nature, and limits of human knowledge. Nearly every great philosopher has contributed to the epistemological literature. Some historically important issues in epistemology are: (1) whether knowledge of any kind is possible, and if so what kind; (2) whether some human knowledge is innate (i.e., present, in some sense, at birth) or whether instead all significant knowledge is acquired through experience (3) whether knowledge is inherently a mental state (4) whether certainty is a form of knowledge; and (5) whether the primary task of epistemology is to provide justifications for broad categories of knowledge claim or merely to describe what kinds of things are known and how that knowledge is acquired. Epistemology- (Concise Encyclopedia)
Epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. A branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of knowledge .theory of knowledge: the inquiry into what knowledge is, what can be known, and what lies beyond our understanding; the investigation into the origin, structure, methods, and validity of justification and knowledge; the study of the interrelation of reason, truth, and experience. Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge
Epistemology deals with the definition of knowledge and its scope and limitations. It translates from Greek to mean ‘theory of knowledge’. It questions the meaning of knowledge, how we obtain knowledge, how much do we know and how do we have this knowledge.?
Kinds of knowledge
As Epistemology is the investigation into the grounds and nature of knowledge itself. The study of epistemology focuses on our means for acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood. Knowledge can be acquired in numerousforms:
Priori it is possible to know things before we have had experiences — this is known as a priori knowledge because priori means before. It includes Independent of the knowledge of experience. Belonging to the mind prior to experience. This term is usually applied to principles or judgments whose validity is independent of sense data Knowledge which is self-evident. Principles which, when once understood, are recognized to be true and do not require proof through observation, experience, or experiment.
Posteriori: we can only know things after we have had the relevant experience — this is labeled a posteriori knowledge because posteriori means “after.”It includes (Inductive thinking beginning with the data of experience opposed to a priori)Knowledge which is based upon experience and observation
Experimental knowledge- It is something to be put to work in experience as a function which carries experience forward satisfactorily.
Theories of the Nature of Knowledge
Agnosticism is the doctrine that holds that one can not know the existence of anything beyond the phenomenon of experience, it may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional religious tenets. The position that conclusive knowledge of ultimate reality is an impossibility.
Scepticism- Philosophical doubting of knowledge claims in various areas, a challenge to accepted views in science ,morals, and religion. A questioning attitude, toward the possibility of acquiring any knowledge.
The Instruments of Knowledge
Empiricism: knowledge is obtained through experience .The position, or sense-perceptual experience, is the medium through which knowledge is gained. Empiricism, is more uniform in the sense that it denies that any form of rationalism is true or possible. Empiricists may disagree on just how we acquire knowledge through experience and in what sense our experiences give us access to outside reality; nevertheless, they all agree that knowledge about reality requires experience and interaction with reality.
Rationalism: knowledge can be acquired through the use of reason .The position that reason is the chief source of knowledge. Rationalism is not a uniform position. Some rationalists will simply argue that some truths about reality can be discovered through pure reason and thought (examples include truths of mathematics, geometry and sometimes morality) while other truths do require experience. Other rationalists will go further and argue that all truths about reality must in some way be acquired through reason, normally because our sense organs are unable to directly experience outside reality at all.
Intuitionism-A position that knowledge is gained through immediate insight and awareness .Direct or immediate knowledge of self, others,or data .An internal, personal phenomenon.
Autoritarionism-The position that much important knowledge is certified to us by an indisputable authority.
Reveleation –T he position that God presently reveals himself in the holy books or holy places. A communication of God,s will to man from some external source.
Epistemology of Different philosophies
Epistemology is important because it is fundamental to how we think. Without some means of understanding how we acquire knowledge, how we rely upon our senses, and how we develop concepts in our minds, we have no coherent path for our thinking. A sound epistemology is necessary for the existence of sound thinking and reasoning — this is why so much philosophical literature can involve seemingly arcane discussions about the nature of knowledge.
Epistemology of Idealism
As to knowledge, idealism holds that knowledge is man thinking the thoughts and purposes of this eternal and spiritual reality as they are embodied in our world of fact.
The idealist attempts to find in the universe general principles which can be given the status of universal truths. In order to do this, it is necessary for the idealist to turn inward; to see, as it were, the ocean in a drop of water and the universe in a grain of sand. Most idealists will accept that notion that man’s being and absolute mind are qualitatively the same, but while we have all the attributes of the Absolute we are like the drop of water and the sea. Just as the drop of water is not the whole ocean, man does reflect, albeit dimly, the Absolute, we can look inward to see the true nature of reality. Idealists believe that all knowledge is independent of sense experience. The act of knowing takes place within the mind. The mind is active and contains innate capacities for organizing and synthesizing the data derived through sensations. Man can know intuitively; that is to say, he can apprehend immediately some truth without utilizing any of his senses. Man can also know truth through the acts of reason by which an individual examines the logical consistency of his ideas. Some Idealists believe that all knowledge is a matter of recall. Plato was one who held this notion. He based this conclusion upon the assumption that the spirit of man is eternal. Whatever he knows is already contained within his spirit. Existence depends upon mind. Every stimulus received by the mind is derived ultimately from God. God is the Infinite Spirit.
Epistemology of Naturalism
Naturalists highlight the value of scientific knowledge the scientific knowledge acquiring through specific observation, accumulation and generalization. They also lay emphasis on the empirical and experimental knowledge. Naturalists also lay stress on sensory training as senses are the gateways to learning
The naturalist rejected the role that intellect or reason play in the knowing process and put forth the claim that the only valid from of knowing process and put forth the claim that he only valid form of knowledge is that derived from experience. For the early naturalists, “experience” chiefly meant that mode of acquiring knowledge based on direct contact of the organism with the physical world thought the senses. The more sophisticated naturalists included the refined modes of knowing used by the empirical sciences. Both, however, imply a denial of reason as a source of knowledge. In practice, both types of experience are evident in naturalistic theory.
Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Epistemology of Pragmatism
Pragmatism is basically an epistemological undertaking keynoted by its theory of truth and meaning. This theory state that truth can be known only through its practical consequences and is thus and individual or a social matter rather than an absolute.
Knowledge is rooted in experience, but experience may be immediate or mediated. Immediate experience is simply “undergoing.” Mediated experience is the interaction of man and his mind with his environment. It requires the use of intelligence. It is intelligence which determines direction. As John Dewey pointed out:
It seemed almost axiomatic that for true knowledge we must have recourse to concepts coming from a reason above experience. But the introduction of the experimental method signified precisely that such operations, carried on under conditions of control, are just the ways in which fruitful ideas about nature are obtained and tested.
Truth in the pragmatic epistemology can be viewed as the production of desired consequences through the five-step process described above. But this does not give truth any special existential status, it simply means that in a particular case something is true.Truth may, therefore, exist in varying degrees. Truth is contingent on, or relative to, set or circumstances. Knowing is an open-ended, ongoing, human activity. As such it is constantly subject to error.
There are three major points of significance to the pragmatic epistemology. First, it is an open-ended, activity, open, to the public and in fact, dependent upon the public test rather than some private metaphysical test. Second, it is subject to error and is continuously being revised in terms of new conditions and new consequences. And, third, it places the ultimate responsibility for truth and knowledge directly upon the shoulders of man. This is a tremendous responsibility and there are many who would rather shirk this responsibility and retreat to the security of a more authoritarian system.
Pragmatism only test of probable truth is what works best in the way of leading us, what fits every part of life best and combine with the collectivity of experience’s demands, nothing being omitted.
Epistemology of Realism
As idealists emphasize the ontological dimensions of philosophy, the realists focus upon epistemological concerns. Basically, there are two different schools of epistemological thought in the realist camp. While both schools admit the existence and externality of the “real” world, each views the problem of how we can know it in a different way. The realists have been deeply concerned with the problems of epistemology. Realists pride themselves on being “hard-nosed” and not being guilty of dealing with intellectual abstractions
The first position or presentational view of knowledge holds that we know the real object as it exists. This is the positions of the New Realists. When one perceives something, it is the same thing that exists in the “real” world. Thus, mind becomes the relationship between the subject and the object. In this school of thought there can be no major problems of truth since the correspondence theory is ideally applicable. This theory states that a thing is true is as it corresponds to the real world. Since knowledge is by definition correspondence, it must be true.
These real entities and relations can be known in part by the human mind as they are in themselves. Experience shows us that all cognition is intentional or relational in character. Every concept is of something; every judgment about something. The realist holds that this is a peculiar relation by which the knowing act becomes united with, in a nonmaterial sense, or directly identified with something really existent …. To know something is to become relationally identified with an existent entity as it is.
Epistemology of Existentialism
The existentialist approach to knowledge is known as the phenomenological method. The atheistic existentialists inherited this method from Husserl. It was adapted further byHeidegger and Sartre to suit their philosophy of “will and action,” especially as it concerns the individual… The phenomenological method consists in the expression of the experiences of consciousness through the media of ordinary language
Existentialists have given little attention to inductive reasoning. Science, they believe, has been one of the major dehumanizing forces in the modern world
In opposition to this cold impersonal approach to knowledge, the existentialist argues that true knowledge is “choosing, actions, living, and dying.”
Epistemology of Humanism
The Renaissance scholar contended that man’s most elevated natural faculty was reason. Revelation was the basis for sacred science but its source was supernatural. Experience gave knowledge of particulars which did not become true knowledge until reason had abstracted the essence of such particulars.
Of the three important sources of knowledge accepted in common by all the orthodox schools (perception, inference, and verbal testimony), the Humanist accepted only perception as the valid source of knowledge and rejected both inference and verbal testimony. Whatever we know through perception is true and real.
The Humanism believed sense perception alone as a means of valid knowledge.Since inference is not a means of valid knowledge, all supersensible things like “destiny,” “soul,” or “afterlife,” do not exist. To say that such entities exist is regarded as absurd, for no unverifiable assertion of existence is meaningful The Humanists did not deny the difference between the dead and the living and recognized both as realities. A person lives, the same person dies: that is a perceived, and hence the only provable, fact
Humanism theory of knowledge is not exactly skepticism or agnosticism, but a fairly thoroughgoing positivism. They accept the reality of whatever we can perceive with our senses and deny the reality of whatever we cannot so perceive. They did not deny the formal validity of inference, because they used the very laws of inference to show that we could not obtain material truths about the world through inference.
Humanistic theory of knowledge speak that there is no existence of causal laws. Every event is a chance; everything comes into existence and passes out of it according to its own nature. Even this nature is not a universal law; it too is subject to change. The Humanists make a strong attack on verbal testimony. Verbal knowledge is only knowledge of words and their meanings are based upon inference. But it has already been pointed out that inference is a dicey source of knowledge.. For either reason, verbal testimony is not a reliable source of knowledge.
Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, possess no valid means to acquire knowledge First, knowledge based on verbal testimony is inferential and so vitiated by all the defects of inference. They saw the scriptures as characterized by three faults: falsity, self-contradiction, and tautology. On the basis of such a theory of knowledge,
The Humanists defended a complete reductive materialism according to which the elements are the only original components of being; all other forms are products of their composition These elements, in turn, were said to be composed of atoms, indivisible units which were conceived as immutable, indestructible and having existed for all time. The properties of any given object were determined by the atoms that comprised it. Likewise, consciousness and the senses were the result of a particular combination of atoms and the proportions in which they were combined. After the death of an organism, this combination disintegrated into elements that then combined with corresponding types of atoms in inanimate nature.. From these alone, when transformed into the body, intelligence is produced—just as the intoxicating power of some herbs is developed from the mixing of certain ingredients. When the body is destroyed, intelligence at once perishes also.
Epistemology of Perennialism
Perennialists see the analytic statement as a self-evident truth that may be know apart from all empirical experience. It is, fro them, a first principal. And according to the perennialists, man is capable of intuiting first principal or having them revealed to him through revelation.
These self-evident truths open, for the perennialist, a whole realm of truth that cannot be reached by science. For the lay perennialist truth can be know through reason and intuition. For the ecclesiastical perennialist there is, added to these two ways of knowing, the certitude of revelation which is given to man. While intuiting is an activity of man, man is simply the recipient of revelation given from a source external to man. Catholic educators rely heavily on the materials of revelation .
To summarize, knowledge is independent of man. Truth can be know by man through reason, but there are certain other truths-… which transcend the “natural” order of the universe – which can only be known through intuition and / or revelation.
Two warnings about the perennialist epistemology might be pointed out. To begin with, first principles should not be confused with clever sayings, with slogans, or with proverbs. While such statements as “a fool and his money are soon parted,” may be commonly true, first principles are always and universally true. An example of such a first principles might be, “Either man has free will or he does not have free will.” Secondly, there is little justification for the argument that the perennialists use of reason is only to support belief. Revelation is simply an independent way of arriving at some truths. The ecclesiastical perennialist would argue that faith is not proof of reason, nor is reason proof of faith. They are simply two routes which, on occasion, lead one to the same truth. For example, the existence of God is accepted on faith despite the five logical proofs of the existence of God given by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theological.
Epistemology of Marxism
The philosophy of Marxism is not overly concerned with theory of knowledge. For the Marxist, the nature or origin of truth, the modes of knowing are not major problems. However, the Marxist view on some major issues in the theory of knowledge is available.
First, knowing does not consists in an apprehension of the “thing in itself,” but rather a grasp of the things as it exists for us. McFadden interprets the knowing process of Marxist epistemology as a combination of active and passive aspect of mind. On the one hand, the outside world acts upon man’s sense organs and thus provides a continual flow of stimuli to the knowing organism. On the other hand, the mind itself, since it is an integral part of the world (matter), partakes of the same active nature as the world and it self active in the knowing process.. In the process of acquiring knowledge, man is simultaneously changed by the knowledge he acquires changes the world by the knowledge acquired. To understand the world, the know er must perceive the relations which exist among the things of the of the real world and between himself and these external objects.
Therefore Marxist theory of knowledge cannot be classified as either realistic or idealistic but rather as a mixture of both. Consequently truth can never be objective or absolute for its is a “relative experience” which does not have set laws. If this be the case it is easy to understand why the “truths” contained in textbooks are frequently changed by Marxists.
There seems to be no doubt that Marxists have placed a priority on the scientific mode of knowing and understandably so, since in this age of science such knowledge gives power. In fact any knowledge which does not give power to its possessor is not worthy of the name.
Lenin himself held “that the only path to truth is science which hold the materialist point of view.”Because of the major role science plays in Marxist school one might be led to believe the radical empiricism is the only epidemiological position amenable to Marxists. Such, however, is not the case, for there is a strong stain of rationalism within the system. This rationalistic strain is derived from the Hegelian notion of mind as both the source and unifying principle of experiences. This structure, which itself is a result of his formalized “dialectic”, presumes that the world is inexorable moving through the three states, thesis antithesis, and synthesis.
Epistemology of Analytical Philosophies
The connotations of analytic epistemology vary from one philosopher to another. A significant divergence is found in Karl Poper, who holds that in empirical matters, a judgment must be falsifiable, but is never, in the last analysis verifiable. That is, it is always possible that something will happen which will require abandonment of an idea found tenable until then, but it is never possible that “the last fact is in” so that a proposition has passed beyond question. Popper also finds other categories of judgments besides empirical one acceptable, but holds that they have a different type of meaning.
Analytic philosophy is, then, before all else, a theory of knowledge. While some analysis today denies a bit heatedly that they are positivists, the system is certainly competent in the repudiation of metaphysics. Ryle deals with the question what knowing is by asking what it is to. Know a tune. It is not, says he, being able to tell its name, nor describing it in words, now symbolizing it in musical notation, not being able to sing it, which presupposes talent one knows the tune holds Ryly, if he recognizes it when he hears it. Carnep says that animals that had sense-organs of a type we lack might provide us with new knowledge. Ayer says it is fruitless to try to transcend the limits of possible sense-experience. In short, the theory of knowledge is empiricism knowledge begins at and never transcends the sensory level. As a rule, the analysis philosophers do not argue their empiricism. They take it for granted as part of the Zeitgeist.
Contemporary analytic philosophy differs from the classical empiricism of Hobbes, Loeke and Hume chiefly in its focus on language. Bertrand Russell himself give to analytical learning complains that the traditional analysis’s take a proposition and “worry it like a dog with a bone”. Here we encounter are important point. The linguistic analysists work with sentences, propositions, premises, statements. They typically ask what this or that declarative sentence might “mean”. But ‘sentences’ don’t ‘mean’ things, ‘people’ means things which they try to express in sentences on way to find out what a man means is to ask him.