“We cowardly avoid it, courageously pursue it, and lament its distortion, but when pressed to say what truth there is, we find ourselves tongue-tied and frustrated”. Michael P. Lynch, The Nature of Truth (2001)
1. 2 Introduction: An Epistemic Orientation
Many people of a reflective disposition will have at some time in their lives asked how can we really know anything, what is knowledge, what does it mean to believe an idea, and what is truth? Those interlinked questions are particularly important in the branch of philosophy known as ‘epistemology’. The word ‘epistemology’ is derived from the Greek words ‘episteme’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘knowledge or understanding’ and ‘the study of’.
This collection of essays is primarily concerned with one epistemological question. How can we develop and enrich our understanding of the world by understanding the process of enquiry? Enquiry means investigation in normal living, in law enforcement and in the the courts. It also means making discoveries in the human and natural sciences and in theoretical topics. Enquiry means developing procedures in the the applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. If epistemology does not enquire into our procedural knowledge of how to ‘do‘ it is severely deficient.
A Caricature of Epistemology
The caricature of traditional epistemology (and philosophy in general) is of the philosopher sitting in the armchair musing about the world inside her head. By the process of highly abstract contemplation, the philosopher was apparently trying to discover indisputable ways of explaining things that can be wisely passed on to the rest of humanity. In fact, there have been some in the past who argued that anything else was not philosophy.
Epistemology is often seen as having a normative role. The Wikipedia article on normativity explains that in philosophy these are “claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong”. I would add to that definition ‘it also involves claims about how to apply the best available analysis’. Depending on your own experience, you might or might not see this as culturally appropriate. For me the idea that epistemology can be thought of as normative is seriously mistaken since opinion on any sub-topic within the discipline is subject to a variety of opinions. The diversity of opinion is well demonstrated by large surveys of professional philosophical opinion (eg https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3).
Beyond Traditional Epistemology
Traditional epistemic analysis of truth stresses the value of abstract reflection. By contrast, a naturalised epistemology emphasises that a theory of understanding is arrived at by a combination of abstract reflection and by the contemplation of experience and action. In so doing we can aspire to have a much richer understanding of the world and develop what is referred to as a ‘Weltanschauung‘ or ‘worldview’ in German academic culture.
We will partially arrive at a worldview and a general theory of understanding by using nature itself and science as a source of inspiration, for systematic and scientifically-styled enquiry is our most developed way of understanding the physical world. However, even this is not sufficient. We are wasting an opportunity if, in addition, we do not draw the appropriate lessons from our everyday practices that we as individuals absorb from the culture that surrounds us, imbues all of our lives and strongly influences our ways of thinking. We as a species have arrived at our present cultures by long and diverse social experiments in communal living and have produced various ways to live throughout our history and prehistory.
In our search for a satisfactory pragmatic philosophy, we could start by being prepared to contemplate, our everyday use of terms and the basis of human logic. We could also consider the lessons that we can learn from medical research or engineering design, decide what we can learn from the courtroom lawyer and judge, as well as a lot more besides. The general approach used here is therefore in part a blend of what has been called ‘traditional epistemology’, ‘naturalised epistemology’ and ‘social epistemology’. Alternatively, we might come to the view that there can be no generalised explanatory theory of knowledge that says anything useful in a practical or intellectual sense.
Evolution
If we ignore the fact that we are evolved animals, we miss the opportunity to see how evolution has shaped our senses, our ability to reason and the outcome of our reasoning processes. Perhaps evolutionary theory can help to explain why we tend to find the Correspondence Theory of Truth instinctively attractive? ( Traditional correspondence theory states that ideas should be regarded as true if they correspond to something in the world. The obvious metaphysical or scientific problem is: in what way can a thought correspond to something in the world, especially that which we do not directly observe, such as elections. Discussed in more detail in a later essay)
Biological evolution has, of course, has entailed an evolution of human culture, that is apparent to all practising archaeologists and anthropologists. These considerations leads me to think that we can productively contemplate the idea of ‘evolutionary’ epistemology (6,7).
Religion?
Many people throughout the world feel that religious ideas can contribute to their ‘world view‘ and hence their conception of knowledge and truth. Although I am not a religious person, I would not deny that for the religious, their religiously derived explanations of the truth of certain ideas can seem as real and as important as their own existence.
One conceptually oriented definition of religion that I like is provided by Keith Yandell and quoted by Alister McGrath “religion is a conceptual system that provides an interpretation of the world and the place of human beings in it, bases an account of how life should be lived given that interpretation, and expresses this interpretation and lifestyle in a set of rituals, institutions and practices.” For me, ritual is often mindless and institutions of a religious kind frequently and actively inhibit the development of new insights. As for the wider social practices associated with particular religions, they are for me merely particular experiments in living that evolve over time, despite claims to be enduring or even timeless.
I feel that in seeking inspiration, I do not personally wish to rely on institutional sources of authority that are not open to sceptical and constructive challenge. For this reason, I will therefore not be concerned in this account with religiously inspired ideas. I hope of course that we can all exchange ideas that we personally regard as beneficial, whether or not they are religiously inspired. My only other comments on religion can be found in the autobiographical note I have added at the end.
Further Reading
1. The Nature of Truth Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (2001) edited by Michael P. Lynch
[A heavyweight (802 pages!) anthology of readings in the Philosophy of Truth by well-known 20th century philosophers with very useful sectional introductions by Lynch. For those who take the subject seriously. OK, I have not read every word. ]
Encyclopaedia links to non-traditional epistemologies
2. Social epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_epistemology
3. Social Epistemology (2019), Alvin Goldman and Cailin O’Connor Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
4. Naturalized epistemology, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology
Naturalistic Epistemology, Chase B. Wrenn, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nat-epis/
5. Naturalism in Epistemology (2016), Patrick Rysiew, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/
6. Evolutionary Epistemology, Nathalie Gontier, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evo-epis/
7. Evolutionary Epistemology (2016), Michael Bradie and William Harms, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/
Steve Campbell
Glasgow, Scotland
2016-21