Study of Knowledge

Epistemology The Study of Knowledge Jeff Castro PHI 200 Dr. Akins February 4, 2013 Epistemology The Study of Knowledge The study of experience has al carriages been the journey toward righteousness and ensureing. Epistemology deals with the creation and distribution of fellowship in certain areas of inquiry. Humans should be free to gain, study and nous cognition and claims without repercussions in any social, cultural or religious setting. As we move forward in our understanding of life, religion and nature, we have changed our way of thinking finished philosophy.We are less ignorant and uninformed about the righteousnesss of the world and how we as human beings perform in it. Knowledge and the confirmation of companionship lowlife be confirmed by propositional and procedural knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance. Propositional knowledge is expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions of wholenesss knowledge base on the know or knowing that. If someon e says all birds have feathers they are stating or asserting a proposition that is factual or somewhat factual. Procedural knowledge is the knowledge used in the performance of a task, such as knowing how to replace brakes on a vehicle.It is exposeed knowledge by means of doing that act. Knowledge by acquaintance is experience based knowledge learned through with(predicate) casual interaction, such as knowing a place or person well (Mosser, 2010). Knowing for certain is always questionable because everything evict be challenged. For the three identified ways of attaining knowledge, the near challenged one is propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge receives the most perplexity because of the state custodyts it brings forward, like I believe that, I know that and I think that (Steup, 2005). These statements are based on ones beliefs, thoughts and ideas which can be questioned.If knowledge is based on ones beliefs or opinions it will bring challenges, but remember an ind ividuals ideas based on beliefs or opinions should respected. We are certain of the other two due to experiencing or performing acts to solidify the knowledge. But then all the same can be questioned because of different procedures or experiences can still result in a different or validation of an outcome or answer. To justify what we really know is inherited, learned or experienced. We cannot really be certain of our knowledge because we can be tricked or limited by our sense that provides us this information to confirm or cut through what we know or learn.Knowledge at one point is imperfect, but the trueness at that point and is reinforced by the progress of science to be an right-down truth to some degree and as Vladimir Lenin says, There is no impassable boundary between relative and absolute truth. (Bogdanov, 1908). The normal order of the world is how we descry it through our senses. It can play tricks on us and deceive through illusions that the mind receives from sight, sound, bask and touch. How humans recognize what is real and not real through their senses is known as empiricism (Mosser, 2010).Empiricists view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, but instead knowledge is original from experience. On the argument side you have rationalism which view knowledge to be innate. It argues that the knowledge of God, mathematics and science cannot be explained by the senses (Mosser, 2010). But this does contradicts how we learn, because without the senses how do we learn mathematics, science or the knowledge of God (the bible). Innate knowledge is derived from the mind, but requires other things to comport or build the mind, the senses.Lets break down the five dollar bill senses (vision, sound, touch, smell and taste) and try to understand what can be limited and why. Vision can be received or altered based on the mightiness to distinguish objects, the depth or field, color, contrast, or even color blindness. Sound can be affected by th e volume or pitch that is received by the ears. Touch can be affected by your haptic perceptual experience and how sensitive ones outer skin is. Smell and taste can be affected by our bad habits (smoking and drinking), disease or medications. So the limitations of ones senses can fool and be limited by our own doings and by the aging process (Gwizdka, 2010).Cognitive relativism is the idea of the knowledge we hold of the real world requires assistance from our mental/mind to build and support and that things being the truth or false are relative to a society, group or individual. I also realize that there are cognitive bias, notational bias and civilisation bias, which prevents us from seeing or analyzing something objectively with our senses (empiricism) which we cannot discount. So to really assert a position of truth would depend on who interprets it based on moral, ethical, or social view (Slick, 2012).Friedrich Nietzsche developed perspectivism which supports cognitive relati vism in that there are many possible prospects to determine any possible legal opinion of the truth to be determined. This means that there is doubt and uncertainty about how we see the world and the truth about it based on perspectives. The limits to human perception or cognition are bounded by each individual and how they can comprehend or process what they are receiving. The processing of the knowledge can be expanded upon through the use of ones innate knowledge.We limited ourselves based on what we only know and what is in front of us. If we can make sense of the world beyond what our senses take in we would be much better off, but remember it is all based on ones perspective of faith, ideas, thoughts and knowledge. Skepticism is originally was defined as someone who simply looked at things and now it is someone who doubts claims. Skepticism forces claims to be justified (Mosser, 2010). When assessing epistemology on the bases of what is known and the unknown we will still qu estion everything for it is uncertain that we really know the truth about something.Yet there will still be limits on what we question because some are based on faith, which is an individuals belief in their religion. There are several types of skepticism moral, religious, metaphysical and scientific. for each one identifying a particular area to question or doubt, but what I find most questionable or intriguing are the religious skepticism or theological skepticism which examines faith-based claims and scientific skepticism or empirical skepticism which uses the scientific method of examining claims.Religious skepticism does not mean one would be either an Atheist or Agnostic. These skeptics question religious authority, but are not anti-religious just because they question specific or all religious beliefs or practices. One of the first religious skeptics was Socrates, he questioned the legitimacy of the beliefs during his time of the existence of various gods and this led to his trial and execution. Scientific skepticism seek proof through deductive argument forward accepting any knowledge in any area, such as health claims, environmental claims, parapsychology, etc.Carl Sagan originated scientific skepticism and was a world-famous astronomer and astrophysicist well known for supporting the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) and questioned that there was more than earth in our and other vast universes. There is also a sub-set of scientific skepticism which is call activist skepticism who seek to expose or prove false publicly what they see as the truth buns extraordinary claims (Klein, 2000). Socrates claimed that he knew one and only one thing that he knew nothing, which was in line with being a Pyrrhonist.He questioned everyone who claimed to have knowledge, hoping to learn from them, but he never claimed that gaining knowledge was impossible and never claimed to discover any knowledge. As such proof of never recording anything to prove o r disprove his knowledge (Mosser, 2010). Sagan wrote in his publications Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesiswhich is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticismespecially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately trialedand youre not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science.A judicious mix is what we need. (Sagan, 1995). Both men were skeptics who believed in questioning and challenging claims and exhibited a fascination with discovery. I believe it is in our nature to question everything to ensure we have validated the claim, but as Sagan has stated there is a fine line before tilting it too far to the left or right. I believe the two skepticisms try to total at the answer of how humans came to being. The religious skeptic will question all religions by comparing claims and questioning why to find the ultimate truth of our existence and our true(a) meaning.The scientific skeptic will require proof in the way of science before accepting knowledge to be true (Munchin, 2011). By taking the two and trying to analyze and form a more complete set of questions to develop a more sensible truth or theory behind the human existence would possibly help me understand or rationalize the questions of why and how in my mind. But I understand there are limits to what I chose to believe as my ideas or perceptions (Shogenji, 2011). The decision between right and wrong is relative to ones society or cultural background.Relativism in the Muslim world would be a death sentence (honor killing) and we would see it as radical relativism. It is easily defendable in their culture and country because it is viewed as a norm or way of life, but not so within most other countries. It is all about perspective because we to at one time burned people at the stake for being witches. Ignorance and lack of education or knowledge made it defensible and original at that time. So is radical relativism defensible, it is all about an individuals or countrys perspective, religious beliefs and culture to decide one way or the other (Mosser, 2010).The basic understanding of philosophy and how it affects our lives is sometimes transparent to most people because they only do without thinking. We have gotten so busy with our attach lives we do not take the time to question why something is true or not, we move around like mindless beings. Epistemology gives us that way to question and seek knowledge to validate truth and to hope to truly understand the why and how of our lives and everything in and around us.Humans should be free to gain, study and question knowledge and claims without repercussions in any social, cultural or religious setting. But this is an ongoing battle to be free from repercussions or persecution of our thoughts, ideas and actions when publically projected. Some countries and cultures still eyelash out in the way of medieval and barbaric manner at anything that does not fit their w ay of life and interactions, but it is all relative and it still falls within the study of philosophy.Choosing to accept this or not, based on beliefs, ideas and religion is your choice, but to understand and have a greater degree of sagacity of knowledge and truth is true epistemology. References Bogdanov, A. (1908). Absolute and Relative Truth, or the Eclecticism of Engels. Retrieved from http//www. marxists. org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5. htm Gwizdka, J. (2010). Human Perception & Cognition. Retrieved from http//comminfo. rutgers. edu/jacekg/teaching/ITI230_HCI/2006_4f/lectures/Lecture3. pdf Klein, P. (2000).Contextualism and the Real Nature of faculty member Skepticism. Retrieved from http//www. jstor. org. proxy-library. ashford. edu/stable/pdfplus/3050570. pdf? acceptTC=true Mosser, K. (2010). A Concise Introduction to Philosophy. San Diego, CA Bridgepoint Munchin, D. (2011). Is theology a science? Paul Feyerabends anarchic epistemology as challenge test to T. F. To rrances scientific theology. Retrieved from http//search. proquest. com. proxy-library. ashford. edu/cv_756002/docview/894110952/fulltextPDF/13C00235777679CB0A0/4? accountid=32521 Sagan, C. 1995). Wonder and Skepticism, Vol 19, Issue 1. Retrieved from http//www. positiveatheism. org/writ/saganws. htm Shogenji, T. (2011). Internalism and Externalism in Meliorative Epistemology. Retrieved from http//search. proquest. com. proxy-library. ashford. edu/cv_756002/docview/1111853938/fulltextPDF/13C06554AFF58193594/1? accountid=32521 Slick, M. (2012). Cognitive Relativism. Retrieved from http//carm. org/secular-movements/relativism/cognitive-relativism Steup, M. (2005). Epistemology. Retrieved from http//plato. stanford. edu/entries/epistemology/