Theory of Knowledge (aka Epistemology)

Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is an area of philosophical inquiry concerned with what we mean when we say we have knowledge of something. It is concerned with what knowledge is, how knowledge is acquired and what the limitations in our ability to know anything are. As with almost all areas of philosophical inquiry it is subject to much debate.

Why I am bringing this up in a blog post is not to run through a history of epistemological thought. Others have already written about that far more cogently than I can in a blog post after doing far more research than I am willing to do to write a blog post. Instead, the purpose of this blog post is to better explain my views on the subject as it will underlie a great deal of any further philosophical discussions on this blog.

So let us start the discussion with the question "what is knowledge?". I posit that knowledge is a theory about a particular aspect of the universe in which we exist that is well supported by observations and logical review. So, what do I mean this? By this I mean that in our lives, we are constantly making observations about the world around us. These observations are then reviewed as to whether they stand up to intellectual scrutiny (whether they make any logical sense and fit in with our other theories without creating any obvious contradictions or paradoxes) and whether the observations that led to the theory are repeatable and reliable.

Once you have made this observation and it has passed scrutiny, it is filed away in your memory as knowledge. But is this knowledge about the universe as it exists independent of the observations and rationale that led to its formulation, or is this knowledge dependent on the perspective that created it? What I mean is, is this knowledge about the universe (realism, facts existing independent of their discoverer) or are the facts contingent on the observer (subjectivism, facts are not independent of the process that created them).

As the above discussion implies, I view knowledge as a product of the observations and rationality that led to its synthesis. More over, as humans, we know that our faculties are not flawless. Our senses can be fooled and are imperfect. There are limits to all our senses, and there are limits to our intellect. This is not to say that we as humans are incapable of coming to the same conclusions about the world (and this I feel is why realists believe facts exist a priori, or independent of the observer). Quite the opposite. We as humans share a common humanity, a common suite of senses and the ability to communicate with each other. These shared experiences lead to a nexus of thoughts and observations. Similar faculties and experiences lead to similar theories about the world. But I think it is important not to allow this to fool ourselves into thinking we thus have true independent knowledge. All our theories still suffer from the same flaw, namely ourselves. And, obviously, this is not a flaw we are capable of overcoming.

So, hopefully this discussion gives you some insight into what I have written so far, and what I plan to write in the future. Obviously, my view on this subject is not the only one and I encourage you to do some independent reading and thinking on the subject.