Epistemology in Philosophy Simply Explained (Past to Present Day Theory)

[@hondro7430]

Good to see someone explaining philosophy in a direct and precise manner. You just conveyed in 15 minutes what many professors and authors convey in hours worth of words.

[@dr.williamkallfelz8540]

Brilliant presentation! Extremely impressive how you were able to cover (in depth and breadth) all the major key ingredients in 15 minutes, so elegantly and informatively.

[@reginawskr]

Bro you just saved me. I'm studying philosophy and I absolutely couldn't understand this topic. Thank you for real. You made everything easier. I'm praying I'll pass the test tomorrow.

[@priyankathoke7644]

DU?

[@sherianlnamz6016]

It's a lot of us who don't understand this topic or struggle to understand lol

[@andrewbuswell6010]

Who are you praying to and are you justified in your knowledge about it?

[@KuHunAha]

Hey! Did you pass the test?

[@RogerNelson-p1w]

​@@KuHunAha l just wondering the same thing 😊😅😂

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

Simply the best video essay on epistemology. Keep up educating the world.

[@isisgomes5680]

Great video, thank you for the succinct presentation! I added to my pursuit of better understanding this immense field of philosophy!

[@denisdang5376]

not gonna lie, so easy to understand+great visuals keep it up mate

[@JustFollowingOrders12]

I feel like belief and knowledge are being used interchangeably in this video when they're different concepts

[@FloydHarriott]

1:56 I think what is listed as "possible ways to get knowledge" can be better categorized as a list of DATA SOURCES and TOOLS to obtain knowledge ;where all data eventually is coming from "Memory". Introspection is an inward facing tool and our senses (aka Perceptions) are outward facing.

[@googlespynetwork]

Thank you very much. A very concise presentation. I'll be back for more. Subbed.

[@sansorini2231]

thanks ben. this was my most useful 15 min of my lifetime.

[@itsJustgotti]

This will be very useful for my theist perspective for years to come. Transcendental argument we go

[@josephpostma1787]

Oke, so that argument looks coherent, but how in the hail does logic necessitate a deity?

[@itsJustgotti]

@@josephpostma1787 well for one the laws of logic must exist in every possible world and is not dependent on human conception. However it can only be existent through conception. Therefore in order for the laws of logic to be applied in every possible world, it must be contained within an conception in order to actually have existence. The key is that the laws of logic are purely conceptual so in every possible universe they must exists through conception. The only possibility of containing the laws of logic must be within a mind and that mind is the mind of God which implies the existence of a God. Without the mind of God maintaining the laws of logic through conception then there is no other way for the laws of logic to be maintained which would mean logic either is just a social construct that doesn’t have any meaning or logic is just simply not there which would be a defeater of knowledge. Here’s the argument as followed I probably explained that poorly 1. Laws of logic exist in every possible world because without them, every possible world would be completely incoherent 2. Laws of logic only exist conceptually and cannot be proven through empiricism 3. Laws of Logic cannot be excluded from justifying since I can also forfeit justification if an atheist were to do so 4. Since the Laws of logic are conceptual they must exist in an existing mind. We know logic by way of our existing minds (the mind is also immaterial) 5. Since the human mind is finite and cannot contain these laws of logic in every possible world, they must be contain in an infinite mind in order to exist in every possible world 6. Laws of logic are conceptual entities, residing In minds and necessarily exist in all possible worlds 7. Only thing with an infinite mind to contain them conceptually in every possible world is the mind of God. 8. Therefore Laws of Logic proves the existence of God

[@johnmacias488]

Your videos are so awesome! Thank you for your hard work!

[@mackymccallum8652]

Excellent lecture.

[@faysal8597]

Amazing breakdown of epistemology 👏🏾

[@starfishsystems]

Good coverage and excellent pacing. It's so easy to go down the rabbit hole at any of several points (axiomatic systems, inductive vs deductive reasoning, mathematical treatment of Bayes' Theorem, belief as a cognitive state, Gödel incompleteness, parallels with ontology, dualism) but you successfully laid out the material without digression, allowing these points to be recognized for followup at a later time. For me, anyway, this is a welcome departure from the common practice among philosophers to digress to such a degree that we may become lost in the material. And there's a place for that, certainly. But it's very useful to have some kind of map of the terrain beforehand!

[@neozes]

Thank you! It was a great summary, and introduction into the world of epistemology.

[@OnyedikachiBlessing1]

Love this; my Exam is tomorrow 🙂

[@ibtihalx169]

This video was extremely helpful!!! Thank you so much

[@gabriellaokamoto6274]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I wish you would slow down though.

[@gijslimonard6583]

Awesome video, great work 👌🏻

[@jeancolman7360]

Clear and simple, thanks

[@Jay-xh9dl]

Thank you, Ben. Subscribed!

[@mysomervda]

Thanks. That's a great summary of Epistemology. Do you know if there is any work going on looking at the nature of Epistemology in complex systems? I could see Bayesian Epistemology methodology could be in play when evaluating knowledge derived from emergent properties in complex systems i.e. chemistry facts would be given a a higher credence if supports a biological fact because biology is emergent from chemistry. Systems of knowledge that biology does not emerge from would have lower credence for supporting biological knowledge.

[@timothywise9731]

In our military weapons systems, we employ Bayesian probabilistic methods to determine the most likely position of a target moving through the battle space. That’s right, we design complex systems to strive for greater levels of truth. The systems cannot determine truth but they constantly strive towards greater levels of truth, always updating information and employing Bayesian methods for greater truth but never knowing if it achieved the truth!

[@OnyedikachiBlessing1]

Scholar😊🙂

[@Dreadylockify]

Okay. This seems like a real great lecture, but c’mon, man. This man is absolutely stunning! I literally can’t concentrate. I have to look away to HEAR him. I’m laughing at myself, because I’m not joking. So distracting. Gorg! Anyway, I’m definitely going to utilize this for my critical thinking course. Clear. Helpful. Detailed. Thanks!

[@DailyBitesofWisdom]

Thank you for this!

[@DarkSkay]

Thanks! I'm looking for opinions on the following, quite unusual statement+question pair: (T1) "The number of questions one can ask about the world is astronomical. How can {a piece of software} contain all those questions?"

[@Sunshinysky432]

Seattle is in Washington state.😊

[@mattphillips538]

Lehrer's "Mr TrueTemp" example shows a real defect in modern philosophy (and Philosophers), that being their complete unfamiliarity with how anything actually works. For example, the imagined TempuComp device can not exist independently of a rational system of Metrology responsible for calibrating the device, verifying that the calibration is reliable, and validating that the system of control tasked with ensuring reasonable confidence in the accuracy and precision of the instrument is, itself, reliable and to be believed. Each of these steps has presuppositions, many of which are different from Mr Lehrer's. #DunningKruger

[@discountpicasso3177]

really good video

[@varundayawar5597]

Good explanation bro 😁 plz keep going

[@randywa]

I think that we know nothing in absolute truth. But I think we should, for practical purposes, believe things based on generally accepted reality. The basic reality we live in is what we perceive (real or not), and the way it functions is what matters. So for practical purposes, we ought to presume it is real and study the world so we can improve our life.

[@randywa]

@@thotslayer9914 I’m not entirely sure what any of those perspectives are but I think I’m probably a bit of both empiricist and pragmatic

[@windrunner9158]

TY!

[@publicutility]

Knowing leads to understanding. Hopefully.

[@jerrytobin88]

How do you know we're the only species that wonders about our place on the planet or in the universe?

[@paulanicolelayos3066]

difference between ancient, medieval and modern epistemology pls?

[@petafoster5084]

I did find myself laughing at the use of the term luck in a statement about fatal illness 😂

[@nathanoyoung]

definition of 🤯

[@tg4108]

anyone know an example of an epistomic normative statement in law

[@RidwanAlQudbi]

Brilliant

[@miketheman4341]

Who are you in any related field of study?

[@googlespynetwork]

I'll bet people just love you at parties.

[@miketheman4341]

@@googlespynetwork Yes as I don’t go to the kind of parties you do. Most of my friends and colleagues have advanced degrees.

[@dakotapeters5654]

I'm utterly shocked at some of the silliness to these theories. The bayesian epistemology isn't too bad. We are getting there. Identify the many meanings people have for truth. I really like first hand experiences cause they are for sure true but take an experience from 10 years ago that's been recorded with you and your friends before rewatching it try to remember it each person has to do this and you'll find there are differences between each person's memory of the event... even our knowledge becomes altered over time in this case... why why do things change over time in general... some things take forever to change others not long at all. Why... I have found a major difference that holds true is that whatever changes quickly is usually because it was not able to hold value integrity, etc... pyramids last for a long time planets even longer the universe even longer. Also good ideas thoughts and theories that aren't able to be disproven especially if they affect a great deal of things in the universe such as universal laws and other such things like religions or beliefs have held up for the longest time whereas poor structures weak minds concepts ideas arguments constructs all typically fail way before the valuable ones. Could keep going... I've found also that the constructs and ideas beliefs even languages that are closest to the root origin of each chosen and or all chosen they all hold up a lot better than most of any of our arguments these days. I think potentially that what we choose to believe as a whole or potentially as an individual dictates what could be true or not. As a whole, we may be manifesting all that is within our universe. No one thing has a solid set purpose just like no one thing is good to everyone and no one things is bad to everyone therefore good and bad are relevant only to the individual perspectives of those that believe x, y or z is bad or good. If you don't believe in good or bad, then is there really either. If you only believe in bad, does good seize to exist. I'd say yes to you, but I wouldn't say it does for everyone else. However if someone else believes that if they believe in good and not bad and that bad will seize to exist for everyone because of they're singular belief then who knows maybe its true and still maybe it's still only true to that singular individual in my reality and in they're reality nobody believes in bad... both could be true. That would be an example of infinite omnipotence, infinite power, aka what most scientists refer to as quantum, quantum physics, or quantum realms. At this point, we are getting into territory more familiar with or related to Eastern worlds' beliefs like the monks gurus sages yogis etc... oh, not to mention Christianity catholicism, etc... in the Bible, it says something along the lines somewhere in it that if you believe anything is possible. Just like our modern day saying dunno where it originated, but it's "anything is possible if you put your mind to it." Sounds an awful lot like "mind of matter" kinda depends on what your focus is put towards and what anything and everything means to you and how you value anything and everything each person values differently from one another each person is locked into they're own spiritual journey that's my opinion. We can try to help each other, or we can simply focus on enlightening ourselves...

[@dakotapeters5654]

My thoughts aren't fully formulated and honestly they might never be cause I may just decide to forget most of what I know for just the few key pieces I find valuable for they're infinite value in anything anywhere anytime during any lifetime. I believe everything is possible and most likely cake from the same source origin point...

[@Chingonazo1]

Seattle is not in California

[@blueseaswhiteskies]

1:52 «A proposition can be of course, true or false». We're talkin about proposicional knowledge that, in some cases, can be misleading

[@adaptercrash]

That's not what it's for proper, that's old foundationalism systems of metaphysic that evolved into a four point causality reductionist system that turned out to be a metaphysic cover for quantum reality. Both for belief and knowledge formation, they call the same thing.

[@justus4684]

Thx

[@Joe-bw2ew]

Before sentient life evolved, DID THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXIST? How do you KNOW?

[@johnmacias488]

As far as we can know. Science has given us alot of solid empirical evidence

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Great intro video. However, treating Hume's induction problem as legitimate fails to acknowledge modernized knowledge which operates well in Systems Theory, with Ogden and Richards Triangle of meaning key. Whitehead touches on it from the perceptual side, and I suppose may be advancing spmething from Kant's a priori notion. Skepticism as part of awareness and acknowledgement of accomplishments indicates thst epistemology now needs a concrete disciplinary use. That gets covered by coherence and correspondence. Bayesian seems a sound aspect, but needs multidisciplinarity. And that gets at "science's" epistemological nature as natural philosophy and limits using methodological naturalism, and the need to identify psycho social domains, and the spiritual religious. Hey, I stidied bio anthro, plus..... Because God and Jesus AND Buddha, etc.....😂

[@adamdost1876]

Seattle is NOT in California.

[@annegraham9339]

And 2+2 is not 71. I think these are examples of propositions. They can be what people believe but it doesn't make the proposition true.

[@letta_scarlettt]

Smart and handsome! ❤

[@jillji8459]

Foundationalism VS Coherentism, the definitions you offered are the same. From my understanding, the structure of coherentism is more like a net/web or a loop, while foundationalism is more like a chain/linear structure.

[@horustrismegistus1017]

Kant sounds like Cont, not cant.

[@markpmar0356]

This format does not work for the particular subject.

[@Freer07]

This format works for me, and I’m watching it on double speed on a treadmill

[@hendrysmith6542]

Do i know ben?? Does anyone know ben??? Does ben know ben?????? Eeek!!

[@iceetmarne3571]

Its funny. I know you have more "education" than me. But when it comes to this conversation you talk in theory. Some people live it. Its shit most of the time, but in passing people they really appreciate the break.

[@KhanBhai-eu4hp]

Tripatite theroy of knowledge

[@nobody687]

This guy is lost in his own head. His examples are ridiculous

[@misterem2600]

Gettier's objections are just tortured thought experiments that all revolve around the most trivial examples of so-called "knowledge" and rely on the sketchy evidence and inconsequential beliefs.