Today I'm in a wistful mood and would like to discuss a topic which I have touched on before: Epistemology. Tis a word of Greek etymology and basically means the 'study of knowledge' or more importantly, how do we recognise something as constituting knowledge. I can never spell this word and I’m eternally grateful to the ‘spellchucker’. And as for its pronunciation- don’t make me say it, it's more sonorous in print. We may think we have a commonsense method for distinguishing true knowledge from what is patently false. But commonsense is an elusive commodity and even when present it often leads us astray. Therefore we need an intellectually rigorous means of distinguishing true ideas, concepts, and physical things from stuff that is not part of reality, even if the word for the methodology is difficult to articulate. However, when we delve deeper into the fundamental methodology of epistemology we enter a world full of woe and intellectual contortions/convolutions. If you want it to be, the topic can become immensely complex and technical and hence unavailable for comprehension by the intelligent layman. The subject can be couched in terms full of heavy intellectual promise only partially comprehensible to a certain group of professional philosophers. I'm a simple man at heart (if you believe this you will believe anything) and like to keep explanations as simple as possible. Einstein was of the opinion: "That if you can't explain something simply then you don't understand the subject" (by the way, Einstein probably never said this, although he should have). I suspect it serves the philosophy profession to maintain a barrage of obscurity to exclude the uninitiated. It keeps the profession exclusive/elusive and slightly mystical. Although I'm not against elitism per se- tis the natural order of things after all. I do have a problem with intellectual elitism. Perhaps I will write about this, someday. After this rambling intro, let's get started.
We need to understand how we gain knowledge at a very fundamental level. How we can reliably, as far as reliability goes, understand the world we inhabit. The ancient Greeks were of the strong opinion that knowledge could be evinced by thinking very hard about a subject using pure logical analysis. Plato and Aristotle were very much attuned to this school of thought. Socrates thought that much of knowledge was innate and not learned. This knowledge could be coaxed from even the unschooled by careful questioning. He considered himself a midwife helping with the birth of preexisting knowledge. When we examine Socrate's dialectic we can see he was being rather disingenuous by encouraging responses with leading questions. By talking to Socrates anyone can become wise.
Of course, the Greeks were wrong in their emphasis on logic and the dialectic. While it is true that knowledge can be obtained in this way it is not the only way. In its purest form such as logic and mathematics, the knowledge found is unequivocally true. Once knowledge has been discovered in this way, and assuming the intervening steps are faultless, this knowledge is irrefutable, forever. As for the dialectic, I will say this: this approach is more suited to questions about the human condition for which there is no true answer. In a way we are entering the realm of opinion, perhaps learned opinion, perhaps intellectually thought-provoking opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Thus the nature of what constitutes 'courage' or 'morals' are highly amenable to this technique. What Socrates had to say about 'courage' is very relevant today and probably wrong.
The other obvious method of gaining knowledge is through our senses. We can see a table; we can hear a table if we rap it and we can smell the wooden composition of the table. As for tasting the table, I will leave my discerning readers to experiment with this form of cognition. It has been known since the ancient Greeks that this method for gaining knowledge is ultimately flawed. Go and read Hume's, 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' to grasp some of the problems involved. I still think Hume's exposition of the problems of induction remains the clearest explanation ever written, even though he wrote two hundred years ago. I don't have space to write a critique here, but even the dullard can see that there is an issue with obtaining knowledge by the senses. For instance, we can only experience some of the total electromagnetic wavelengths reflected from a table. Once light hits the retina the image is converted into electrical impulses which are processed by our brain to give a representation of the table. This view is fortified by a consideration of quantum mechanics which views the table as almost entirely 'made' of empty space (what is space?) and what we consider as solid is an electromagnetic phenomenon with a probability coefficient. This is not very encouraging for the true empiricist. However, regardless of how defective our interrogation of nature is, together with deduction, these two methodologies remain the only way we can gain knowledge of the universe we inhabit. And of course, reliance on our senses is the basis of the scientific process for gaining knowledge. There is no doubt that science works, although there is a modern strain/stain in society that belittles its achievements.
Some may say that I haven't considered other possible forms of cognition that remain equally valid for discerning knowledge. They will argue that 'faith' and 'revelation', those twin imposters, are relevant pathways for obtaining true knowledge. I would vehemently disagree although I don't have space to criticise these so-called methods here. However, I will lay out my contrary thoughts in the next eagerly awaited post.
I will leave my readers to pontificate and ruminate on alternative ways to knowledge, at the most fundamental level, and I invite all and sundry to leave their thoughts in the comments below. I am always eager to read any alternative theory that may be proposed. But beware, I can be savage in my condemnation. Arse.
