Epistemology: Part 1
Epistemology describes the process or method people use to distinguish knowledge from belief and true claims from false claims. The language used to describe an epistemology must be unambiguous because it is the tool we use to communicate a coherent train of thought. As such, the words we choose to represent our thoughts must be defined appropriately in order to minimize confusion. Belief, knowledge, truth, and faith are four key words many people assume are already uniquely defined yet are the source of numerous contextual misunderstandings. Therefore, a reasonable recommendation is to ensure those terms are more precisely understood on the outset.
To begin with, the words “believe” and “know” are often interchanged with each other during casual conversation. For example, I could claim to know an apple exists at the grocery store or claim to believe an apple exists at the grocery store. I might intend for both statements to have the same meaning and arbitrarily choose to say “I know an apple exists at the grocery store.” However, if someone were to ask how I could possibly "know" an apple exists at the grocery store at this very moment since I am currently several miles from the produce section, I would concede such knowledge is unavailable to me for the time being. Although apples are fairly common and usually in stock at the grocery store, I am not located there at this time to observe an apple in the produce section. While it is unlikely the grocery store is completely out of apples, I cannot completely rule out that possibility. Therefore, my use of the word “know” in this case is inaccurate because it implies I have failed to objectively falsify the claim that an apple currently exists at the grocery store. Consequently, it would be more accurate for me to say “I believe an apple exists at the grocery store.” This is because the word “believe” describes a cognitive state where I possess a degree of confidence in the unfalsified proposition that an apple exists at the grocery store. Although I may be able to provide reliable reasons for a high degree of confidence in the belief, it still does not qualify as knowledge until the claim survives a test designed to falsify it.
Meanwhile, most people commonly define “truth” to be that which corresponds with reality and often associate or equate it with knowledge. For instance, I could claim to know an apple exists or claim it is true that an apple exists because my observation of an apple in the produce section validates the claim as corresponding with reality. This understanding of truth seems intuitive and tempts us to accept the definition without further debate. The problem, though, is that our perception of reality and what reality actually is may not be identical. Optical illusions demonstrate where our visual sense perception does not consistently or accurately convey what is “absolutely true” in the external world. Imagine someone places a holographic image of an apple in the produce section which is indistinguishable from a real apple in appearance. If I were unaware that the apple on display was a hologram, it would seem reasonable for me to claim I know the apple exists because the visual observation validates the proposition as corresponding with my perception of reality. However, even though I might refer to my visual observation of an apple as a justification for claiming personal knowledge of the apple’s existence, it would not be entirely accurate to say it is true that the apple exists because the apple’s appearance is just an optical illusion. Fortunately, in this case, all that is necessary to discover the objective truth of the claim is to conduct a test designed to falsify it. If the apple exists, then I should be able to hold it in my hand. When the test fails, I am forced to conclude that the apple is a hologram and does not really exist except as an optical illusion.
Now, consider a scenario where the source of everything you perceive through your senses including site, taste, touch, hearing, and smell is a sophisticated illusion (like in “The Matrix” movies). When you observe yourself eating that apple you purchased from the grocery store, the entire experience would really be an elaborate simulation which you are completely unaware of and unable to escape from. In that situation, none of your senses or cognitive faculties provides you with an ability to “absolutely” know if the sources of your experiences actually exist in the external world you are observing. You would have no way to determine if the apple actually exists independently of your perception of it because, unlike the holographic apple, there is no way to falsify the claim. For instance, if you suddenly found yourself in a completely different reality where an entity identifying itself as the “Master Programmer” demonstrates your previous existence and everything in it including the apple was just a sophisticated virtual reality, how would you know this new reality is not also part of the same or another elaborate illusion? You could not rule out that possibility and would be no closer to knowing the absolute truth of your reality. No philosophical argument, regardless of how convincing it may be, will prove the external world you are experiencing actually exists apart from your perception of it. Therefore, the only “absolute truth” available to you is knowledge of your own conscious existence. This predicament is described in philosophy as the problem of hard solipsism. The problem of hard solipsism cannot be resolved using any type of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, the first epistemological rule must be as follows:
Rule 1: Any Claim which invokes the existence of anything beyond your perceived external reality (the metaphysical) as an explanation for a phenomenon observed within your perceived external reality is unfalsifiable and unknowable.
Your self-awareness and sensory experiences are, therefore, limited to that which corresponds with the reality you perceive. If your metaphysical reality is something different from the reality you perceive, then knowledge of that absolute truth is inaccessible to you. However, your self-awareness and sensory experiences do enable you to distinguish imagined things (the conceptual) from observable things (the empirical) within the boundaries of what is objectively falsifiable. For example, when you imagine yourself eating an apple like the one you observed at the grocery store, your senses do not detect the existence of an apple in your external reality as they would for an apple you purchased at the grocery store. You can also imagine yourself throwing an apple at your glass window and predict what your senses would observe if such an event actually took place. Conversely, taking the action of actually throwing the apple you purchased from the grocery store at your glass window will result in observable and objective consequences your senses will definitely distinguish as not imaginary. This is not only the case for apples and windows but for everything observable in the external world including yourself. In other words, there are demonstrable, consistent, and objective consequences for various actions taken by and on things which are perceived to exist in the external world unlike things which only exist as mental concepts. Under this revised understanding, you can subdivide “truth” into three categories: Metaphysical truth, Conceptual truth, and Empirical truth.
The “Empirical” truth is represented by the observable apple which experiences predictable and objective consequences for actions taken on it. Because you can observe the apple either through direct empirical observations with your senses or through indirect empirical observations using reliable technology which functions to extend or amplify your senses (like a mass spectrometer or a microscope), it is possible to know you are not just imagining an apple. Furthermore, because the observed objective consequences (empirical evidence) of throwing an object at another object have been consistent in the external world, it is possible to reliably predict the consequences of throwing an apple at your window. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to predict the apple would suddenly stop in midair before hitting the window because you have no empirical evidence of apples or other similar objects having ever behaved in that way before. This is summarized in the second epistemological rule:
Rule 2: Only direct or indirect empirical evidence can be used to obtain knowledge of empirical truths.
(To Be Continued)