Running Head: EPISTEMOLOGY 1

Epistemology

PHI 208

February 2, 2014
EPISTEMOLOGY 2

Epistemology

Knowledge is essential in all areas of life, but the philosophical skepticism of knowledge

raises curiosity, belief, and doubt. The question of the limits of human knowledge has become an

area of research, whereby educational practitioners have assembled various understandings of

knowledge. However, they have failed to arrive at a consensus, implying that there is no

certainty on the kind of knowledge one purports to have, and the gauge to ascertain that limit.

This means the ultimate source and justification of knowledge remains a leading barrow to

plausible reasoning. In many instances, people fail to establish whether they believe the truth or

their thoughts. Evidently, rationality of choices fails to strike a balance in epistemology hence

questioning certainty, as well as justification of knowledge. In as much as many scholars, such as

Plato believe knowledge is a true opinion, certainty of knowledge is an issue of concern to

scholars and philosophers (Alexander & Moore, 2008). Knowledge is a revolutionary aspect of

life, which changes occasionally, depending on the period and people involved. Therefore, what

is known in the contemporary world is information passed from predecessors and one cannot

justify its legibility. This means ascertain the kind of knowledge one has and the extent of the

“known” in that knowledge is a critical issue, which is explored in epistemology. Using various

philosophical though, this paper attempts to tackle the question: What can humans know

for certain and how can they justify that they actually know what they

think they know?

Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge. It justifies knowledge using three theories

of foundation, reliability, and coherencies. However, the question of knowledge fails to meet

requirements of epistemology elements. Bertrand Russell through problems of philosophy

EPISTEMOLOGY 3

emphasizes the distinction of knowledge by description and assertion. These are two phenomena

that have caused confusion in the justification for real knowledge. In his assertion, the concept of

the mind finds centre stage showing the epistemological relevance. This is because epistemology

prioritizes justification of knowledge, sources and favorable conditions for knowledge. Analysis

of propositions in statements requires possession of evidence. In various scenarios, the justifiable

degree of evidence dictates the probability of truth. This directly relates to the cognitive

processes, where one applies rationality for judgment. The propositional mental attitudes use

practical and theoretical examples to bring into light the uncertainty of what human know

(Dicker, 2004).

Different types of knowledge exist, and this causes complication in the exploration of

knowledge. Scientific knowledge, for example, is information based on physical and evidential

data. It is knowledge that relies on cognition rather that perception of different views. It is in this

regards that scientific knowledge remains a justifiable belief, as opposed to other viewpoints.

According to foundationalism, regress of justification eludes truth in what people say. This is

despite the belief and access to reasons that support what people talk about (Oppy & Dowe,

2011). The Gettier problem offers a tripartite analysis of knowledge to reduce luck in identifying

knowledge. According to the analysis, people have limited idea of what they say. This is

because, in most instances, people believe in what they say and not the source of information

they relay.

Typically a statement of belief expresses trust and faith. However, justification of

intellectual certainty remains a challenge in the lifelong learning process. This brings on board

the question of consciousness, which is an important element in the process of decision making.

According to Peter Russell all animals have consciousness. The assumption takes into
EPISTEMOLOGY 4

consideration animals like dogs, cats, parrots, sharks and snakes. The sensitivity to internal and

environmental changes is an evidence of consciousness; however, where are the limits from

humans? This is a question important for handling certainty of truth. Lack of boundaries between

humans and animals questions the integrity of what people know. This is because animals have

no reasoning capacity (Oppy & Dowe, 2011).

Furthermore, the reasoning capacity observed in animals remains limited to various

internal demands. Therefore, if human consciousness is at the same level as that of animals, a

problem arises according to a philosopher Alfred North. The evolution of consciousness in

humans has taken different directions. In as much as they emanated from mammals, the lingual

ability creates a new age over the same animals. The ability to talk allows humans to develop

internal knowledge using the expanded consciousness, to make rational decisions. However,

does this justify the certainty of what we say or know? Arguably, the behavior of people is

intergenerational and relies on environmental consciousness. Furthermore, decisions by people

are directly related to past experiences. For instance, appearance of a tree is not as a result of

what people see but in relation to past experiences. Therefore, the certainty of what we say

relates to past experiences. It is in this regards that children have different perceptions of things

based on the immediate environment. From this perspective, justification of what people say

remains a nightmare (Dicker, 2004).

Interestingly, many people think they know much and feel relevant in different

conversations. However, the divergence between perception and cognition attempts to settle

what cooks in the mind. Notably, all perceptions depend on the nervous systems resulting from

chemical and physical processes in the body. For example, actions of the eye depend on light

remittance from the retina. On the other hand, hearing and smell relies on pressure waves as well
EPISTEMOLOGY 5

as odor molecules respectively. Notably, perception remains a factor of expectation and memory

from the immediate environment. The sensory input uses a selective input system to process

important information that allows for a conscious awareness (Pintrich, 2002). This allows people

to make distinctions in life. It is from this perspective that one can distinguish a computer from a

mobile phone.

The sensory qualities also allow people to identify different odors to arrive at realistic

sensory information. In as much as perception greatly contributes to everyday life decisions, the

difference between the phenomenon and reality is a question of concern. In many court systems

around the world, witnesses have failed to provide valid testimonies. This is evident in various

color scenarios where lawyers have made thin line arguments based on the disability to identify

colors. Furthermore, the inability of the eye to identify and be sure raises questions of integrity

on human judgment (Dicker, 2004). For example, a coin held on the face makes a circular image

on the retina; however, the same coin forms an elliptical image in a different angle. The inability

to make similar shapes from the same object raises more questions that the available answers.

Therefore, what humans know is a matter of perception rather than internal decisions. In this

regard, certainty of what we say or do is s function of perceptions and not independent factors.

Cognition is a mental process that comprehends reasoning, calculations, decision making

and problem solving. The information processing system applies changing preferences and

knowledge to intellectually judge various situations. Cognition remains the most vital part of

human beings as wrong decisions have an ultimate effect on their livelihood. Despite the value, it

relies on the nervous system for normal functioning. The ability of a person to choose oranges

over apples greatly depends on the cognition skills (Oppy & Dowe, 2011). In many instances,

cognition allows for functional images that directly influences immediate choices. Therefore,
EPISTEMOLOGY 6

people are not likely to make wrong decisions regarding physical choices. The question,

however, is moral judgments, which do not only require neuro-imaging, but also reasoning. How

does one make an action illegal or a taboo for a community without faulting other’s rights? This

discrepancy fails to justify human reasoning hence making what people know a mere inference

(Dicker, 2004).

In conclusion, the certainty of what people know is a question of many determinants.

This is despite assertions from great philosophers like Plato who consider knowledge as a true

component of humans. Evidently, knowledge is a continuous process; however, people should

find common points of research. The non-disjunction in various discoveries and explanation of

different phenomena remains a clear sign of disunity in knowledge. Furthermore, it proves the

non certainty in the case of God where every philosopher brings on board divergent views. In

addition, the distinction between scientific and other forms of knowledge proves the uncertainty

of what we know. For instance, many people believe in science, however, science has failed to

prove various cognitive and perceptive receptions. This makes epistemology a serious area of

research, which does not only streamline what people know but also find justification for

different actions committed.

EPISTEMOLOGY 7

References

Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2008). Dentological ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Retrieved on 17, Jan 2014, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Dicker, G. (2004). Kant's theory of knowledge: An analytical introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

O’Brien, D. (2004, October 10). Sellars and the myth of the given. In The Epistemology of

Perception. Retrieved on 17, Jan 2014 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epis-per/#SH3b

Oppy, G., & Dowe, D. (2011). The Turing test. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Spring 2011 Edition). Retrieved on 17, Jan 2014 from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role Of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and

Assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.