CONCEPT OF EPISTEMOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge 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).

Epistemology is a neologism derived from the Greek epistēmē meaning "knowledge" and logos meaning "study of". It translates the German concept, which was used by Fichte and Bolzano for different projects before it was taken up again by Husserl. 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. 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. 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.

 

 

Branches within epistemology

1.     Essentialism

2.     Historical

3.     Perennialism

4.     Progressivism

5.     Empiricism

6.     Idealism

7.     Rationalism

8.     Constructivism

9.     The regress problem

10.                        Infinitism

11.                        Foundationalism

12.                        Coherentism

13.                        Foundherentism

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.^[22] 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. But that does not mean that philosophical epistemology is itself an historical subject, or that it pursues only or even primarily historical understanding.

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.

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, while some regard disciplines such as mathematics and logic as exceptions.

Idealism

Many idealists believe that knowledge is primarily acquired or is innate—for example, in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical processes often go by the name "intuition". The relevant theoretical concepts may purportedly be part of the structure of the human mind, or they may be said to exist independently of the mind.

Rationalism

By contrast with empiricism and idealism, which centres around the epistemologically privileged status of sense data and the primacy of Reason respectively, modern rationalism adds a third 'system of thinking', 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.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all "knowledge is a compilation of human-made constructions. 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.

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 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 justification. On this theory there is no rock bottom of justification. Justification just meanders in and out through our network of beliefs, stopping nowhere." 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."

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 , one can therefore have an infinite series of logical arguments and analyze it for a 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, 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.