Epistemology

Philosophy
Philosophers
Aestheticians Epistemologists Ethicists Logicians Metaphysicians Social and political philosophers
Traditions
Analytic Continental Eastern Islamic Platonic Scholastic
Periods
Ancient Medieval Modern Contemporary
Literature
Aesthetics Epistemology Ethics Logic Metaphysics Political philosophy
Branches
Aesthetics Epistemology Ethics Logic Metaphysics Political philosophy Social philosophy
Lists
Index Outline Years Problems Publications Theories Glossary Philosophers
Philosophy portal
v t e

Epistemology (ⁱ/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος, logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge^[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

The term "epistemology" was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).^[3]

Background and meaning

Epistemology is a neologism derived from the Greek epistēmē meaning "knowledge" and logos meaning "study of".^[4] It translates the German concept Wissenschaftslehre, which was used by Fichte and Bolzano for different projects before it was taken up again by Husserl.^[4] J.F. Ferrier coined the word on the model of ‘ontology’, to designate that branch of philosophy – affirmed to be the latter’s ‘true beginning’ – to discover the meaning of knowledge.^[4] The term passed into French as épistémologie, with, however, a generally narrower meaning than the original, the import of which is covered by ‘theory of knowledge [theorie de la connaissance].’^[4] Thus Émile Meyerson opened his Identity and Reality, written in 1908, with the remark that the word ‘is becoming current’ as equivalent to ‘the philosophy of the sciences [philosophie des sciences].’^[4]

Knowledge

Certainty series
Agnosticism Approximation Belief Certainty Doubt Determinism Epistemology Fallibilism Fatalism Hypothesis Justification Nihilism Probability Scientific theory Skepticism Solipsism Theory Truth Uncertainty
v t e

Knowledge that, knowledge how, and knowledge by acquaintance

In epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge usually discussed is propositional knowledge, also known as "knowledge that." This is distinguished from "knowledge how" and "acquaintance-knowledge".^[5] For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing how to add two numbers and knowing a person (e.g., oneself), place (e.g., one's hometown), thing (e.g., cars), or activity (e.g., addition). Some philosophers think there is an important distinction between "knowing that," "knowing how," and "acquaintance-knowledge," with epistemology being primarily concerned with the first of these.^[6]

In his paper On Denoting and his later book Problems of Philosophy Bertrand Russell stressed the distinction between "knowledge by description" and "knowledge by acquaintance". Gilbert Ryle is also credited with stressing the distinction between knowing how and knowing that in The Concept of Mind. In Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi argues for the epistemological relevance of knowledge how and knowledge that; using the example of the act of balance involved in riding a bicycle, he suggests that the theoretical knowledge of the physics involved in maintaining a state of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride, and that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded. This position is essentially Ryle's, who argued that a failure to acknowledge the distinction between knowledge that and knowledge how leads to infinite regress.

In recent times, some epistemologists (Sosa, Greco, Kvanvig, Zagzebski) and Duncan Pritchard have argued that epistemology should evaluate people's "properties" (i.e., intellectual virtues) and not just the properties of propositions or of propositional mental attitudes.^{[citation needed]}

Belief

In common speech, a "statement of belief" is typically an expression of faith and/or trust in a person, power or other entity — a paradigmatic example of such a statement of belief would be a declaration or affirmation of religious faith (as in, e.g., the Nicene Creed). While it addresses belief of this kind, epistemology is also concerned with belief in a very much broader sense of the word. In this broader sense "belief" simply means the acceptance as true of any cognitive content. To believe is to accept as true.^[7]

Truth

Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for (its) belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself (by crossing it), he knows it to be safe.

Epistemologists argue over whether belief is the proper truth-bearer. Some would rather describe knowledge as a system of justified true propositions, and others as a system of justified true sentences. Plato, in his Gorgias, argues that belief is the most commonly invoked truth-bearer.^{[citation needed]}

Justification

In many of Plato's dialogues, such as the Meno, and in particular the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief that has been "given an account of" — meaning explained or defined in some way. According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. One implication of this would be that no one would gain knowledge just by believing something that happened to be true. For example, an ill person with no medical training, but with a generally optimistic attitude, might believe that he will recover from his illness quickly. Nevertheless, even if this belief turned out to be true, the patient would not have known that he would get well since his belief lacked justification.

The definition of knowledge as justified true belief was widely accepted until the 1960s. At this time, a paper written by the American philosopher Edmund Gettier provoked major widespread discussion. (See theories of justification for other views on the idea.)

The Gettier problem

Edmund Gettier is remembered for his 1963 argument, which called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years.^[8] In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a true proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. As in the diagram, a true proposition can be believed by an individual (purple region) but still not fall within the "knowledge" category (yellow region).

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge. One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he also has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Jones's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." (see^[8] p. 122.) These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true by virtue of luck. In other words, he made the correct choice (in this case predicting an outcome) for the wrong reasons. This example is similar to those often given when discussing belief and truth, wherein a person's belief of what will happen can coincidentally be correct without his or her having the actual knowledge to base it on.

Responses to Gettier

The responses to Gettier have been varied. Usually, they have involved substantial attempts to provide a definition of knowledge different from the classical one, either by recasting knowledge as justified true belief with some additional fourth condition, or as something else altogether.

Infallibilism, indefeasibility

In one response to Gettier, the American philosopher Richard Kirkham has argued that the only definition of knowledge that could ever be immune to all counterexamples is the infallibilist one.^[9] To qualify as an item of knowledge, goes the theory, a belief must not only be true and justified, the justification of the belief must necessitate its truth. In other words, the justification for the belief must be infallible.

Yet another possible candidate for the fourth condition of knowledge is indefeasibility. Defeasibility theory maintains that there should be no overriding or defeating truths for the reasons that justify one's belief. For example, suppose that person S believes he saw Tom Grabit steal a book from the library and uses this to justify the claim that Tom Grabit stole a book from the library. A possible defeater or overriding proposition for such a claim could be a true proposition like, "Tom Grabit's identical twin Sam is currently in the same town as Tom." When no defeaters of one's justification exist, a subject would be epistemically justified.

The Indian philosopher B K Matilal has drawn on the Navya-Nyaya fallibilism tradition to respond to the Gettier problem. Nyaya theory distinguishes between know p and know that one knows p – these are different events, with different causal conditions. The second level is a sort of implicit inference that usually follows immediately the episode of knowing p (knowledge simpliciter). The Gettier case is examined by referring to a view of Gangesha (late 12th century), who takes any true belief to be knowledge; thus a true belief acquired through a wrong route may just be regarded as knowledge simpliciter on this view. The question of justification arises only at the second level, when one considers the knowledgehood of the acquired belief. Initially, there is lack of uncertainty, so it becomes a true belief. But at the very next moment, when the hearer is about to embark upon the venture of knowing whether he knows p, doubts may arise. "If, in some Gettier-like cases, I am wrong in my inference about the knowledgehood of the given occurrent belief (for the evidence may be pseudo-evidence), then I am mistaken about the truth of my belief – and this is in accordance with Nyaya fallibilism: not all knowledge-claims can be sustained."^[10]

Reliabilism

Reliabilism has been the main line of response to the Gettier challenge among philosophers, originating with work by Alvin Goldman in the 1960s. According to reliabilism, a belief is justified (or otherwise supported in such a way as to count towards knowledge) only if it is produced by processes that typically yield a sufficiently high ratio of true to false beliefs. In other words, this theory states that a true belief counts as knowledge only if it is produced by a reliable belief-forming process.

Reliabilism has been challenged by Gettier cases. Another argument that challenges reliabilism, like the Gettier cases (although it was not presented in the same short article as the Gettier cases), is the case of Henry and the barn façades. In the thought experiment, a man, Henry, is driving along and sees a number of buildings that resemble barns. Based on his perception of one of these, he concludes that he has just seen barns. While he has seen one, and the perception he based his belief that the one he saw was of a real barn, all the other barn-like buildings he saw were façades. Theoretically, Henry doesn't know that he has seen a barn, despite both his belief that he has seen one being true and his belief being formed on the basis of a reliable process (i.e. his vision), since he only acquired his true belief by accident.^[11]

Other responses

Robert Nozick has offered the following definition of knowledge:

S knows that P if and only if:

• P;
• S believes that P;
• if P were false, S would not believe that P;
• if P is true, S will believe that P.^[12]

Nozick argues that the third of these conditions serves to address cases of the sort described by Gettier. Nozick further claims this condition addresses a case of the sort described by D. M. Armstrong:^[13] A father believes his daughter innocent of committing a particular crime, both because of faith in his baby girl and (now) because he has seen presented in the courtroom a conclusive demonstration of his daughter's innocence. His belief via the method of the courtroom satisfies the four subjunctive conditions, but his faith-based belief does not. If his daughter were guilty, he would still believe her innocent, on the basis of faith in his daughter; this would violate the third condition.

The British philosopher Simon Blackburn has criticized this formulation by suggesting that we do not want to accept as knowledge beliefs, which, while they "track the truth" (as Nozick's account requires), are not held for appropriate reasons. He says that "we do not want to award the title of knowing something to someone who is only meeting the conditions through a defect, flaw, or failure, compared with someone else who is not meeting the conditions.".^{[citation needed]} In addition to this, externalist accounts of knowledge, such as Nozick's, are often forced to reject closure in cases where it is intuitively valid.

Timothy Williamson has advanced a theory of knowledge according to which knowledge is not justified true belief plus some extra condition(s). In his book Knowledge and its Limits, Williamson argues that the concept of knowledge cannot be broken down into a set of other concepts through analysis—instead, it is sui generis. Thus, though knowledge requires justification, truth, and belief, the word "knowledge" can't be, according to Williamson's theory, accurately regarded as simply shorthand for "justified true belief."

Alvin Goldman writes in his Causal Theory of Knowing that in order for knowledge to truly exist there must be a causal chain between the proposition and the belief of that proposition.

Externalism and internalism

Part of the debate over the nature of knowledge is a debate between epistemological externalists on the one hand, and epistemological internalists on the other. Externalists hold that factors deemed "external", meaning outside of the psychological states of those who gain knowledge, can be conditions of knowledge. For example, an externalist response to the Gettier problem is to say that, in order for a justified true belief to count as knowledge, it must be caused, in the right sort of way, by relevant facts. Such causation, to the extent that it is "outside" the mind, would count as an external, knowledge-yielding condition. Internalists, on the other hand, assert that all knowledge-yielding conditions are within the psychological states of those who gain knowledge.

Though unfamiliar with the internalist/externalist debate himself, many point to René Descartes as an early example of the internalist path to justification. He wrote that, because the only method by which we perceive the external world is through our senses, and that, because the senses are not infallible, we should not consider our concept of knowledge to be infallible. The only way to find anything that could be described as "indubitably true," he advocates, would be to see things "clearly and distinctly".^[14] He argued that if there is an omnipotent, good being who made the world, then it's reasonable to believe that people are made with the ability to know. However, this does not mean that man's ability to know is perfect. God gave man the ability to know, but not omniscience. Descartes said that man must use his capacities for knowledge correctly and carefully through methodological doubt.^[15] The dictum "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) is also commonly associated with Descartes' theory, because in his own methodological doubt, doubting everything he previously knew in order to start from a blank slate, the first thing that he could not logically bring himself to doubt was his own existence: "I do not exist" would be a contradiction in terms; the act of saying that one does not exist assumes that someone must be making the statement in the first place. Though Descartes could doubt his senses, his body and the world around him, he could not deny his own existence, because he was able to doubt and must exist in order to do so. Even if some "evil genius" were to be deceiving him, he would have to exist in order to be deceived. This one sure point provided him with what he would call his Archimedean point, in order to further develop his foundation for knowledge. Simply put, Descartes' epistemological justification depended upon his indubitable belief in his own existence and his clear and distinct knowledge of God.^[16]

The Value problem

A formulation of the value problem in epistemology first occurs in Plato's Meno. The problem is to identify what is it about knowledge (if anything) that makes it more valuable than mere true belief. The value problem re-emerged in the philosophical literature on epistemology in recent years. One of the more influential responses to the problem is that knowledge is not particularly valuable and is not what ought to be the main focus of epistemology. Instead, epistemologists ought to focus on other mental states, such as understanding.^[17]

Acquiring knowledge

The second question that will be dealt with is the question of how knowledge is acquired. This area of epistemology covers:

1. Issues concerning epistemic distinctions such as that between empirical and non-empirical methods of formulating knowledge.
2. Distinguish between synthesis and analysis used as means of proof
3. Debates such as the one between empiricists and rationalists.
4. What is called "the regress problem"

A priori and a posteriori knowledge

The nature of this distinction has been disputed by various philosophers; however, the terms may be roughly defined as follows:

• A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical, or arrived at beforehand, usually by reason). It will henceforth be acquired through anything that is independent from experience.
• A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical, or arrived at afterward).

Evolutionary psychology takes a novel approach to the problem. It says that there is an innate predisposition for certain types of learning. "Only small parts of the brain resemble a tabula rasa; this is true even for human beings. The remainder is more like an exposed negative waiting to be dipped into a developer fluid"^[18]

Analytic–synthetic distinction

Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, drew a distinction between "analytic" and "synthetic" propositions. He contended that some propositions are such that we can know them to be true just by understanding their meaning. For example, consider, "My father's brother is my uncle." We can know it to be true solely by virtue of our understanding what its terms mean. Philosophers call such propositions "analytic." Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, have distinct subjects and predicates. An example of a synthetic proposition would be, "My father's brother has black hair." Kant stated that all mathematical and scientific statements are synthetic a priori propositions because they are necessarily true but our knowledge about the attributes of the mathematical or physical subjects we can only get by logical inference.

The American philosopher W. V. O. Quine, in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", famously challenged the distinction, arguing that the two have a blurry boundary. Some contemporary philosophers have offered more sustainable accounts of the distinction.^[19]

Branches or 'tendencies' within epistemology

Essentialism

Educational essentialism is an educational philosophy whose adherents stress that children should learn the traditional basic subjects and that these should be learned thoroughly and rigorously. An essentialist program normally teaches children progressively, from less complex skills to more complex.

Historical

The historical study of philosophical epistemology is the historical study of efforts to gain philosophical understanding or knowledge of the nature and scope of human knowledge.^[20] Since efforts to get that kind of understanding have a history, the questions philosophical epistemology asks today about human knowledge are not necessarily the same as they once were.^[20] But that does not mean that philosophical epistemology is itself an historical subject, or that it pursues only or even primarily historical understanding.^[20]

Perennialism

Perennialists assert that one should learn the things that one deems to be of everlasting importance to all people everywhere. They believe that the most important topics develop a person. Since details of fact change constantly, these cannot be the most important. Therefore, one should learn principles, not facts. Since people are human, one should learn first about humans, not machines or techniques. Since people are people first, and workers second if at all, one should learn liberal topics first, not vocational topics. The focus is primarily on teaching reasoning and wisdom rather than facts, the liberal arts rather than vocational training.

Progressivism

Educational progressivism is the belief that education must be based on the principle that humans are social animals who learn best in real-life activities with other people. Progressivists, like proponents of most educational theories, claim to rely on the best available scientific theories of learning. Most progressive educators believe that children learn as if they were scientists, following a process similar to John Dewey's model of learning: 1) Become aware of the problem. 2) Define the problem. 3) Propose hypotheses to solve it. 4) Evaluate the consequences of the hypotheses from one's past experience. 5) Test the likeliest solution.^[21]

Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge focusing on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. Certain forms treat all knowledge as empirical,^{[citation needed]} while some regard disciplines such as mathematics and logic as exceptions.^{[citation needed]}

There are many variants of empiricism, positivism and realism being among the most commonly expounded but central to all empiricist epistemologies is the notion of the epistemologically privileged status of sense data.

Idealism

Many idealists believe that knowledge is primarily (at least in some areas) acquired by a priori processes or is innate—for example, in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical processes often go by the name "intuition".^[22] The relevant theoretical concepts may purportedly be part of the structure of the human mind (as in Kant's theory of transcendental idealism), or they may be said to exist independently of the mind (as in Plato's theory of Forms).

Rationalism

By contrast with empiricism and idealism, which centres around the epistemologically privileged status of sense data (empirical) and the primacy of Reason (theoretical) respectively, modern rationalism adds a third 'system of thinking', (as Gaston Bachelard has termed these areas) and holds that all three are of equal importance: The empirical, the theoretical and the abstract. For Bachelard, rationalism makes equal reference to all three systems of thinking.

An example of abstract thinking is Pythagoras' concept of 'pure' geometric forms: perfect triangles, squares, circles, etc. Another example is imaginary numbers, in mathematics.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all "knowledge is a compilation of human-made constructions",^[23] "not the neutral discovery of an objective truth".^[24] Whereas objectivism is concerned with the "object of our knowledge", constructivism emphasises "how we construct knowledge".^[25] Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that form a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity, and on viability instead of truth. Piagetian constructivism, however, believes in objectivity—constructs can be validated through experimentation. The constructivist point of view is pragmatic;^[26] as Vico said: "The norm of the truth is to have made it."

The regress problem

"... to justify a belief one must appeal to a further justified belief. This means that one of two things can be the case. Either there are some [epistemologically basic] beliefs that we can be justified for holding, without being able to justify them on the basis of any other belief, or else for each justified belief there is an infinite regress of (potential) justification [the nebula theory]. On this theory there is no rock bottom of justification. Justification just meanders in and out through our network of beliefs, stopping nowhere."^[27] The apparent impossibility of completing an infinite chain of reasoning is thought by some to support skepticism. Socrates said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Response to the regress problem

Many epistemologists studying justification have attempted to argue for various types of chains of reasoning that can escape the regress problem.

Infinitism

It is not impossible for an infinite justificatory series to exist. This position is known as "infinitism". Infinitists typically take the infinite series to be merely potential, in the sense that an individual may have indefinitely many reasons available to him, without having consciously thought through all of these reasons when the need arises. This position is motivated in part by the desire to avoid what is seen as the arbitrariness and circularity of its chief competitors, foundationalism and coherentism. In mathematics, an infinite series will sometimes converge – (this is the basis of calculus) – one can therefore have an infinite series of logical arguments and analyze it for a convergent (or non-convergent) solution.

Foundationalism

Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by asserting that certain "foundations" or "basic beliefs" support other beliefs but do not themselves require justification from other beliefs. These beliefs might be justified because they are self-evident, infallible, or derive from reliable cognitive mechanisms. Perception, memory, and a priori intuition are often considered to be possible examples of basic beliefs.

The chief criticism of foundationalism is that if a belief is not supported by other beliefs, accepting it may be arbitrary or unjustified,^[28] though foundationalism is based upon the principle that these beliefs are infallible enough to be recognised as such in practice.

Coherentism

Another response to the regress problem is coherentism, which is the rejection of the assumption that the regress proceeds according to a pattern of linear justification. To avoid the charge of circularity, coherentists hold that an individual belief is justified circularly by the way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part. This theory has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special, possibly arbitrary status for some particular class of beliefs. Yet, since a system can be coherent while also being wrong, coherentists face the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds to reality. Additionally, most logicians agree that any argument that is circular is trivially valid. That is, to be illuminating, arguments must be linear with conclusions that follow from stated premises.

However, Warburton writes in 'Thinking from A to Z,' "Circular arguments are not invalid; in other words, from a logical point of view there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them. However, they are, when viciously circular, spectacularly uninformative.(Warburton 1996)."

Foundherentism

A position known as "foundherentism", advanced by Susan Haack, is meant to be a unification of foundationalism and coherentism. One component of this theory is what is called the "analogy of the crossword puzzle." Whereas, for example, infinitists regard the regress of reasons as "shaped" like a single line, Susan Haack has argued that it is more like a crossword puzzle, with multiple lines mutually supporting each other.^[29]

What do people know?

The last question that will be dealt with is the question of what people know. At the heart of this area of study is skepticism, with many approaches involved trying to disprove some particular form of it.

Skepticism

Skepticism is related to the question of whether a certain knowledge is possible. If point B cannot be proven before point A, and if in order to prove point A it must be established with absolute certainty, then skepticism argues that it is difficult to prove any point at all. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic beliefs that are justified without reference to others. The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that "basic beliefs" must exist, amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope. While a foundationalist would use Münchhausen trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs, a skeptic would see no problem with admitting the result.

Developments from skepticism

Early in the 20th century, the notion that belief had to be justified as such to count as knowledge lost favour. Fallibilism is the view that knowing something does not entail certainty regarding it. Charles Sanders Peirce was a fallibilist and the most developed form of fallibilism can be traced to Karl Popper (1902–1994) whose first book Logik Der Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery), 1934 introduced a "conjectural turn" into the philosophy of science and epistemology at large. He adumbrated a school of thought that is known as Critical Rationalism with a central tenet being the rejection of the idea that knowledge can ever be justified in the strong form that is sought by most schools of thought. His two most helpful exponents are the late William W Bartley and David Miller, recently retired from the University of Warwick. A major source of on-line material is the Critical Rationalist website and also the Rathouse of Rafe Champion.

Epistemic culture

Epistemic culture distinguishes between various settings of knowledge production and stresses their contextual aspects. Coined by Karin Knorr-Cetina in her book Epistemic Cultures; she defines epistemic cultures as an "amalgam of arrangements and mechanisms — bonded through affinity, necessity and historical coincidence — which in a given field, make up how we know what we know".^[30] The term provides the conceptual framework used to demonstrate that different laboratories do not share the same "scientific" knowledge production model, but rather each is endowed with a different epistemic culture prescribing what is adequate knowledge and how it is obtained. Since its introduction, the term has been picked up and used by various researchers engaging in Science and technology studies.

Practical applications

Far from being purely academic, the study of epistemology is useful for a great many applications. It is particularly commonly employed in issues of law where proof of guilt or innocence may be required, or when it must be determined whether a person knew a particular fact before taking a specific action (e.g., whether an action was premeditated). Another practical application is to the design of user interfaces. For example, the skills, rules, and knowledge taxonomy of human behavior has been used by designers to develop systems that are compatible with multiple "ways of knowing": abstract analytic reasoning, experience-based 'gut feelings', and 'craft' sensorimotor skills.

Other common applications of epistemology include:

Economics Education Theory Education Technology Artificial intelligence Cognitive science Cultural anthropology (do different cultures have different systems of knowledge?) History and archaeology Intelligence (information) gathering Knowledge management Mathematics and science Medicine (diagnosis of disease) Neurology Philosophy of education Behavioral neuroscience Software Testing

Product testing (how can we know that the product will not fail?) Psychology Philosophy Linguistics Logic Literature Theology and apologetics Sociology Testimony

See also

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of epistemology.

Book: Epistemology

A-E Adaptive representation Agnotology Agrippa's trilemma Bayesian probability Biosemiotics Conveyed concept Cybernetic epistemology Eastern epistemology Editology Evidentialism Evidentiality Evolutionary epistemology Explanatory model

F-M Formal epistemology Gödel's incompleteness theorems Meta-epistemology Methodology Methods of obtaining knowledge Monopolies of knowledge

N-S Noölogy Nyaya Participatory epistemology Phaneron Physical ontology Problem of other minds Reformed epistemology Scientific method Self-evidence Semiotics Social epistemology Sociology of knowledge Subject–object problem

T-Z Transcendence (philosophy) Uncertainty principle Virtue epistemology

Footnotes

Works cited

Further reading

• The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Epistemology & Methodology

External links

Look up epistemology in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: epistemology

Wikimedia Commons has media related to epistemology.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles:

• Bayesian Epistemology by William Talbott.
• Epistemology by Matthias Steup.
• Evolutionary Epistemology by Michael Bradie & William Harms.
• Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science by Elizabeth Anderson.
• Naturalized Epistemology by Richard Feldman.
• Social Epistemology by Alvin Goldman.
• Virtue Epistemology by John Greco.

Other links:

• Epistemology at PhilPapers
• Epistemology at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
• Epistemology entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• What Is Epistemology? – a brief introduction to the topic by Keith DeRose.
• Certain Doubts — a group blog run by Jonathan Kvanvig, with many leading epistemologists as contributors.
• The Epistemological Lifeboat by Birger Hjørland & Jeppe Nicolaisen (eds.)
• The Epistemology Page by Keith DeRose.
• Justified True Belief and Critical Rationalism by Mathew Toll
• The White Book by Tinky Brass.
• Epistemology Papers a collection of Michael Huemer's.
• Epistemology Introduction, Part 1 and Part 2 by Paul Newall at the Galilean Library.
• Teaching Theory of Knowledge (1986) — Marjorie Clay (ed.), an electronic publication from The Council for Philosophical Studies.
• Epistemology: The Philosophy of Knowledge — an introduction at Groovyweb.
• The Peripatetic – a practical introduction to the theory of knowledge
• Theory of Knowledge – an introduction to epistemology, exploring the various theories of knowledge, justification, and belief.
• A Theory of Knowledge by Clóvis Juarez Kemmerich, on the Social Science Research Network, 2006.
• An Introduction to Epistemology by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
• On a Critical Epistemology
• Language Perception and Action: Philosophical Issues
• A short film about epistemology, for beginners

Articles related to epistemology v t e Philosophy   Branches of philosophy Traditional Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics Philosophy of Action Art Culture Design Music Film Being Business Dialogue Education Environment Futility Healthcare History Human nature Humor Language Literature Mathematics Mind Pain Psychology Philosophy Religion Science Physics Chemistry Biology Geography Sexuality Social science Economics Justice Law Politics Society Space and time Technology Computer science Engineering Information War   Schools of thought in philosophy By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Zen Greco-Roman Aristotelianism Cynicism Epicureanism Hermeneutics Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Presocratic Pythagoreanism Sophism Stoicism Indian Buddhist Cārvāka Hindu Jain Persian Mazdakism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval 9th – 16th century Christian Europe Scholasticism Renaissance humanism Thomism East Asian Korean Confucianism Rigaku Neo-Confucianism Indian Navya-Nyāya Vishishtadvaita Dvaita Islamic Averroism Avicennism Persian Illuminationism Kalam Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern 17th – 19th century People Neo-Thomism Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxist philosophy Dialectical materialism (Idealism Absolute idealism Rationalism Empiricism Utilitarianism Pragmatism) Liberalism Anarchism Modernism Phenomenology Transcendentalism Existentialism (Kokugaku New Confucianism) Contemporary 20th – 21st century Analytic Analytic feminism Consequentialism Experimental philosophy Internalism and Externalism Falsificationism Foundationalism and Coherentism Logical positivism Legal positivism Quinean Naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Postanalytic philosophy Utilitarianism (contemporary) Neo-Aristotelian Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Kyoto School Russian cosmism more...   Philosophical positions Aesthetics Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Monism Naturalism Epistemology Constructivism Empiricism Idealism Particularism Fideism Rationalism/Reasonism Skepticism/Nihilism Solipsism Mind Behaviorism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Realism   Philosophy by region Philosophy-related lists By region African Ethiopian Aztec Eastern Chinese Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Pakistani Western American British Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Lists Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications Portal Category WikiProject Changes v t e Epistemology Epistemologists Thomas Aquinas Augustine of Hippo William Alston Robert Audi A. J. Ayer George Berkeley Laurence BonJour René Descartes Edmund Gettier Alvin Goldman Nelson Goodman Paul Grice David Hume Immanuel Kant Søren Kierkegaard Saul Kripke John Locke G. E. Moore Robert Nozick Alvin Plantinga Plato Hilary Putnam Thomas Reid P. F. Strawson W.V.O. Quine Bertrand Russell Ludwig Wittgenstein Nicholas Wolterstorff Vienna Circle Theories Coherentism Constructivist epistemology Contextualism Determinism Empiricism Evolutionary epistemology Fallibilism Feminist epistemology Fideism Foundationalism Genetic epistemology Holism Infinitism Innatism Internalism and externalism Naïve realism Naturalized epistemology Phenomenalism Positivism Reductionism Reliabilism Representative realism Rationalism Skepticism Theory of Forms Transcendental idealism Uniformitarianism Concepts A priori knowledge Analysis Analytic–synthetic distinction Belief Causality Common sense Descriptive knowledge Exploratory thought Gettier problem Justification Knowledge Induction Objectivity Problem of induction Problem of other minds Perception Proposition Regress argument Simplicity Speculative reason Truth more... Related articles Outline of epistemology Alethiology Faith and rationality Formal epistemology Meta-epistemology Philosophy of perception Philosophy of science Social epistemology Portal Category Task Force Stubs Discussion v t e Philosophy of science Philosophy of Biology Chemistry Physics thermal and statistical Social science Environment Technology Mind Artificial intelligence Information Perception Space and time Psychology Computer science Concepts Analysis Analytic–synthetic distinction A priori and a posteriori Causality Commensurability Construct Creative synthesis Demarcation problem Empirical evidence Explanatory power Explanandum Fact Falsifiability Feminist method Ignoramus et ignorabimus Inductive reasoning Ingenuity Inquiry Intertheoretic reduction Models of scientific inquiry Nature Objectivity Observation Paradigm Problem of induction Scientific law Scientific method Scientific revolution Scientific theory Testability Theory choice Theory‐ladenness Underdetermination Related topics Artificial intelligence Epistemology Faith and rationality History and philosophy of science History of science History of evolutionary thought Metaphysics Pseudoscience Relationship between religion and science Rhetoric of science Sociology of scientific knowledge Criticism of science Alchemy Metatheory of science Confirmation holism Coherentism Constructive empiricism Constructive realism Constructivist epistemology Contextualism Conventionalism Positivism Reductionism Determinism Fallibilism Foundationalism Deductive-nomological model Hypothetico-deductive model Inductionism Infinitism Instrumentalism Pragmatism Model-dependent realism Naturalism Physicalism Rationalism and empiricism Received view of theories and semantic view of theories Scientific realism and anti-realism Scientific essentialism Scientific formalism Scientific skepticism Scientism Structuralism Uniformitarianism Vitalism Philosophers of science Ancient Plato Aristotle Stoicism Epicurians Medieval Averroes Roger Bacon William of Ockham Hugh of Saint Victor Dominicus Gundissalinus Robert Kilwardby Early modern Francis Bacon Thomas Hobbes René Descartes Galileo Galilei Isaac Newton Late modern Immanuel Kant Friedrich Schelling Auguste Comte William Whewell Wilhelm Windelband John Stuart Mill Herbert Spencer Pierre Duhem Henri Poincaré Wilhelm Wundt Contemporary Albert Einstein John Dewey Bertrand Russell Alfred North Whitehead Rudolf Carnap W.V.O. Quine Adolf Grünbaum Bas van Fraassen Berlin Circle Carl Gustav Hempel C. D. Broad Charles Sanders Peirce Daniel Dennett Hans Reichenbach Ian Hacking Imre Lakatos Jürgen Habermas Karl Theodor Jaspers Karl Pearson Karl Popper Larry Laudan Mario Bunge Michael Polanyi Michael Dummett Otto Neurath Paul Häberlin Paul Feyerabend Pierre Gassendi R. B. Braithwaite Stephen Toulmin Thomas Kuhn Vienna Circle Portal Category v t e Positivism Positivist perspectives Empiricism Scientism Antihumanism Rationalism Declinations Logical positivism within Analytic philosophy Postpositivism Sociological positivism Legal positivism Rankean historical positivism Machian positivism (Empirio-criticism) Polish positivism Russian positivism (Empiriomonism) Positivism in international relations Positivist school of criminology Main concepts Consilience Verificationism Induction Evidence Justificationism Pseudoscience Elimination of metaphysics Demarcation Unity of science Antitheses Antipositivism Humanities Geisteswissenschaft Human science Hermeneutics Critical theory Historicism Historism Reflectivism Confirmation holism Falsifiability The problem of induction Debate Related debates over method Methodenstreit of economics (1890s) Werturteilsstreit (1909) Positivismusstreit (1960s) Science Wars (1990s) Contributions The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830) A General View of Positivism (1848) The Analysis of Sensations (1886) The Logic of Modern Physics (1927) Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) The Two Cultures (1959) The Universe in a Nutshell (2001) Proponents Auguste Comte Émile Durkheim Richard Avenarius Vienna Circle Berlin Circle Criticism Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909) History and Class Consciousness (1923) The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) The Poverty of Historicism (1936) World Hypotheses (1942) Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951) Truth and Method (1960) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) Conjectures and Refutations (1963) One-Dimensional Man (1964) Knowledge and Human Interests (1968) The Poverty of Theory (1978) The Scientific Image (1980) The Rhetoric of Economics (1986) Critics Wilhelm Dilthey Max Weber Gaston Bachelard György Lukács Theodor Adorno Hans-Georg Gadamer Willard Van Orman Quine Karl Popper Thomas Kuhn Paul Feyerabend Mario Bunge Contended concepts Truth Knowledge Verstehen Phronesis Related paradigm shifts in the history of science Non-Euclidean geometry (1830s) Heisenberg uncertainty principle (1927) Related topics Philosophy of science (Deductive-nomological model · Ramsey sentences · Theory of sense-data) Epistemology Sociology Social science Critical rationalism Criticism of science Objectivity in science Relationship between religion and science Nomothetic–idiographic distinction Qualitative research Phenomenalism Epistemological idealism Operationalism Instrumentalism Behavioralism Structuralism Structural functionalism Structuration Holism in anthropology Naturalism in literature Modernism Flag of Brazil