Introduction to Epistemology

[@israelboakes6710]

Omg 8 years old. I have only been watching you for long about 3 years. I type in a word and you're here. Thank you! Had to click as soon as I saw it was from this goodness of a channel

[@grits_taste_good415]

Wow. You spend plenty of time on KZbin. I understand your situation, for I have taken a similar path. May your darkest rabbit holes be peaceful. Stay thoughtful, brother/sister

[@aucoeurduleader9966]

Since many years I tried to find a clear definition of epistemology. Thanks for that great work.

[@boskaalan2328]

You, dear Claud were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

[@qodaeus]

@@boskaalan2328 Where might we find your "knowledge-bit" that you typed that day?

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

@@boskaalan2328 ​​⁠ Said, if you feel like giving qodamerula an answer of devotion, I second her emotion!!

[@troybernal5085]

I'll never forget my humanities teacher saying "epistemology will mess you up" lol

[@MirzaBorogovac]

amazingly, a lot of insight into epistemology can be obtained by studying statistics. Knowledge is really a model of reality inside your head, and properties of models are studied in statistics.

[@HitomiAyumu]

Mirza Borogovac Eeer no. Mathematics as a whole is the study of abstract entities and models. Nothing special about statistics

[@stacey_1111rh]

I can’t even explain how awesome your channel is. I’ll be binging. Subed and liked. You’ve got my support glad I found you! Best wishes!

[@JohnDoe-sx4ch]

The one, truly knowledgable person that has ever lived proclaimed it on every episode of the TV show Hogan's Heroes. Schultz, the bungling guard, who always maintained, "I know nothing!!"

[@boskaalan2328]

I challenge you by claiming: "there is no 'nothing' " (matrix), "I think, therefor I am not 'nothing' (d'écarts) "and "To be nothing or not to be nothing? That's the question" (Shakespeare) --> All baseless believes that hold no knowledge. You, dear John D. were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Watered down affective social science that political and economic

[@shashankseth4665]

Informative introduction! Studying about interesting subjects like practical and propositional knowledge is really so enlightening for anyone. These are the fields about which, people are less-informed and that deserve to be explored well. Thanks for this lecture. Shashank Seth, Student at Glocal School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Glocal University, U.P. (India)

[@BigDaddyDru]

I feel like we’ve grown up together. Your channel is one of the best on KZbin. Thank you. 🫂❤️🙏🏽

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Obviously, a true theory of the nature of knowledge must account for every type of knowledge that exists in its explanation of knowledge.

[@ashober268ify]

I jumped in a junior level philosophy class without having ever taken intro and I feel so lost. This was very helpful.

[@boskaalan2328]

You, dear Ashley were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

[@M3Lucky]

I really love your channel, it's so good at introducing philosophy to newbies like me. I'd love if you could do videos on Karl Popper and maybe an Intro to Critical Rationalism too! More philosophy of science would be awesome :)

[@davidlilley4637]

I have recently viewed a few KZbin presentations on philosophy and this is one of the better ones. I have always considered that there are only two problems in philosophy; the big one, episte, and ethics. I have never had a clue what metaphysics was. Now I know. There is no such thing. Remnants of Plato's theory of forms (an ancient view of the world), the mind/body problem (might have been a problem with Hobbs and Descartes but it is the discipline of neorologists today rather than a philosophical problem) and causality (already solved by Hume). As you point out it is just the book that follows Aristotle's book on physics but has no new material problems. Kant also considered that there were only two problems; episte and ethics. What he termed pure and practical reason and he made a massive contribution to solving both. Both problems have now been solved. Popper has solved the episte problem and law making is not done by reference to Bentham or Kant but by parliament (with debate and scrutiny, consultation with stakeholders, first and second readings, ammendments and second chamber review). I am a big champion of discipline (every other enquiry is a discipline) as in going forward and standing on the shoulders of giants and seeing further. When someone mentions empiricism, rationalism, analytical, continental, ontology, existentialism, phenominology, posivitism and any number or other evolutionary dead-ends I want to scream. Its a discipline stupid. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further. If others think it is OK to mention seventeenth century empiricism then should we also include animism as a valid here and now talking point. No we should not. We go forward.

[@coachmarc2002]

control-c; control-p

[@dominicw1467]

Interesting videos, mate! :-) I like the way you use your quotes. And in cases where it is not at all self-explanatory, you dive into the definitions of the terms you present. nice! But please do us one favor: get a good microphone, man! It makes a huge difference!

[@academyofideas]

Dominic W Check out my new videos! I use a new mic. Thanks for the feedback!

[@rehmsmeyer]

academyofideas Keep 'em coming.

[@academyofideas]

+Dominic W Thanks! I did get a better microphone that I use in my more recent videos.

[@lathapm7238]

Good explanation in brief

[@RomanusAureus]

Thank you so much for this excellent introduction. I am in awe of how capable we humans are. Please, could you explain what is the difference between epistemology and gnoseology? I remember in high school we had one year of philosophy, and the teacher told us only about ontology and gnoseology, and from what I still have in my mind, gnoseology seems similar to epistemology.

[@academyofideas]

We are going to be adding lists of further resources for the topics we cover in our lectures on our website. You can find a list of epistemology resources on our site, the link is in the video description. But we are just in the beginning phases and concentrating more on the lectures, so the site is quite basic, but there is more to come:)

[@xmenprince]

I am very thankfull for this magnificient introduction

[@johnathanjacobs2569]

Let me start by saying your channel is the only channel i subscribe too. So i say this with all due respect. I have not explored philosophy all too deeply in my life. I understood very early on that these are all ideas and suppositions. I agree with many of the thoughts in your videos. You do an excellent job at pushing your feeling on a subject while still seeming completely objective. Perhaps I feel this way because most of the time i agree with what you are saying . I feel like this particular subject is backwards , and not because the content you submitted doesnt match the idea, but i merely feel that people havent understood the order of operations if you will. We dont question what is happening around us because of fear....we feel fear because we question what is happening around us

[@shawnchristophermalig4339]

Bruh, I love this as a podcast 💛

[@maryjomhanna6698]

Very interesting video. I personally never heard of such topic "Epistemology". I found It quite informative and catchy. Now I can claim knowing the difference between "Knowledge" and the "Theory of Knowledge" and how/why this "Epistemology" popped out.

[@gowharwani8919]

A brief but nice introduction to epistemology

[@boskaalan2328]

You, dear Gowhar Wari, were not paying true attention, read my knowledge-bit I typed today!

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Excellent video

[@KanielD]

This channel has always been 🔥

[@demonderpz7937]

this is genuinely interesting because i'm attempting to learn quantum mechanics and metaphysics. Thank you

[@pronoynath1171]

What do you think has Knowing the nature/Physics has to do with human nature : goodness , evil for e.g in Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, Kentaro Muira's Berserk ?

[@andrewnyirenda734]

Since its been 4 years what have you learnt

[@kurai99]

Since it's been 8 years, what have you learnt?

[@demonderpz7937]

@@kurai99 I simply stopped trying to learn lol. Too complicated and rolled right off my brain

[@shoebkhann307]

​@@demonderpz7937😭😭🫂

[@Existentialist-earthling52]

Well, i'm certainly getting knowledge by going over this channel.

[@colinjbanks]

Excellent summary. Thank you.

[@skepticalJones82]

Empiricism seems like the best tool that we have. You mentioned 2 problems: 1) limitations of our senses 2) we are all biased interpreters of what we observe We can chip away at the first problem with better and better instruments (telescopes, etc) The second problem can be *largely* overcome with tools like double blind experiments, control groups, and peer review. Reasoning can certainly help, but should be firmly checked by observation since we are so good at self deception.

[@midshipman8654]

skepticalJones82 I know this is an old comment but still. Both of your points narrow the extent of empiricism’s flaws immensely. 1.) You state that like our limitation in regards to senses is only in acuity, not just breadth. For example, it wasn’t that long ago until we perceived the first evidence of gravitational waves. And who knows, maybe our current theory of relativity will not hold as we keep examining. Unless we are omniscient, we can never be sure that we can perceive all things with any amount of accuracy. For example the transition from the Newtonian model of physics to general relativity would have messed up philosophy bigtime if it was purely through the lense of Empiricism, however, since it was not, it didn’t effect it at all. 2.) on person bias, even a double blind test does not eliminate all biases. Cultural bias, age bias, and biases we are not currently equipt to study since they may be universal human biases might muddle the certainty of specific statements.

[@ThemisTheotokatos]

In ancient Greece there was a Goddess of knowledge named Athena, and there was a God of war names Aris. Aris had two children that he would through in the battle before he marches in, phobos and tromos (meaning fear and terror). When ever Athena the Goddess of knowledge encountered phobos and tromos she would beat the shit out of them and then Aris could not even touch her.

[@salixstorm1571]

interesting video. I dont really agree with the idea that fear is the basis for epistemolgy though, it could be for some, but i feel it is just plain curiosity that is the real basis.

[@jabrifahad]

I agree with you..it is more like a confirmation or a rejection of a belief.

[@salixstorm1571]

Fahad Al Jabri Hi, yea. Beliefs are very intriguing arent they. I feel it very important to take a very humble approach to beliefs since that is exactly what they are. we belief because we dont know, and if we say we know, do we really know or are we just deluding ourselves and stop searching for an answer since we think we know. I can see that fear can be one factor but there seems to be other factors as well.

[@Dazzletoad]

I would suggest existence itself necessitates epistemology, even conditional and instinctive learning in other animals.

[@jovanpando5407]

Epistemology is the most illogical fantasy nonsense I've ever heard. You can't be the justification for what you think you know is true, you can't say that I know evolution is true because I perceive it as true because that would be circular reasoning which is one of the greatest fallacies in an atheistic worldview which states that we are the sole arbitrator of our perceived knowledge. Therefore nothing can ever be known to be true. Get out of here with that nonsense

[@HitomiAyumu]

Jacob Pando You speak nonsense. You don't even understand what you're saying.

[@StephOnyia]

This was very helpful. Thanks 😊

[@aoulipa4165]

Thanks for the concise explanation

[@raywilliams212]

1:54 "Empiricists" *heavy breathing* Just kidding, glad to see your channel doing so well!

[@iraman315]

Great video! thanks

[@in2dionysus]

Resilent in my domain, critacism has a point to which stands as question! If in question, the point stands to reason! Vigilence in demand holds a practical notion to which the body absorbs theory to conjure a point for obtaining! The body obtains = knowledge! Knowledge is not a thing in itself, it is a body that ascertains to let go of non practical situations of the body! Great work, gives me some points to think about!

[@blurtling]

this comment has my head spinning.

[@randomness3235]

Fabulous, thank you! Transcript and all, nice.

[@stevepruthvi7009]

i Love this pleasure of knowledge .

[@raiesshah2790]

Why I want to comment? What would explain it? Becoming is knowledge. What makes me more authentic is the authentic knowledge.

[@AneeshV1992]

Great video. I was hoping to see maybe a tiny segment on how language is a player in the theory of epistemology. Kant says the moon for us, is a mere bundle of ideas. So whether it is propositional or practical knowledge, how do you see the role of language fit into this? Thank you.

[@quattroportepolestar2412]

Your question actually made me a bit curious, so I did some research and stumbled upon the field of linguistic relativity - namely Whorfianism. This principle seems to work in two ways - a strong one and a weak one - but both point to language manipulating our attainment in knowledge in at least some minute manner.

[@frankdickson3063]

Don't get me wrong this video is informative and interesting, but for the love of God this guy needs to work on his mic skills.

[@Oceanix__]

​@Will C perhaps he can just search on youtube for the content which will help to improve, which i know many people have already volunteered their time for that?

[@Oceanix__]

@Will C yes!!! lol sorry i was unaware of how old this video is and how old these comments are!! yea, i just compared right now indeed the quality is much improved :)

[@maromaro3286]

the earth is *H U R R I C A N E* flat

[@williamqwert2353]

i've been linked this video for a learning tool. the immediate sound of his scraped breath through my headphones and directly into my ears brought all of the hairs on my body to attention. this guy needs to just like... not have the mic inside his mouth while he speaks.

[@rgplongbeach]

Will C epistemology of mic knowledge

[@toxendon]

KNAWLEDGE

[@nothingtoitbuttodoit]

NAH-LEDGE

[@adamwyatt1902]

GNAWLEGE

[@KatyWantsToGo]

Eratosthenes nahledge, fuck I’m too late...

[@arlo9875]

LAMBORGHINIS

[@karz12]

RAWRLEDGE

[@macsnafu]

The problem with empiricism isn't the untrustworthiness of our senses, but the limitations of what we can sense. This is why we augment empirical knowledge with other types of knowledge. But notice that deductive and inductive reasoning is usually based or premised on empirical knowledge, so that we end up building more complicated structures of knowledge that combine different types of knowledge. Justified True Belief as a "formula" for knowledge has long bothered me, because the only way we have of determining the truth of a belief is the justification we have for believing that it is true. Thus the "truth" component of JTB is either impossibly unknowable, or unnecessarily irrelevant apart from our justifications. I haven't decided what is the best alternative to JTB, although I would suggest Sufficiently Justified Belief (SJB) as a start in the right direction, with more work needed on what constitutes 'sufficiently justified'. There's no need to invoke fear as the reason for epistemology. We need epistemology simply to help define and understand what knowledge is. We need good ways of determining the differences between unjustified beliefs and actual knowledge, so that we don't unintentionally act on beliefs thinking we are acting on knowledge. This is especially apparent in the heavily-argued subjects of politics and religion, but ultimately epistemology can have far-reaching effects in society, culture, and our every day lives, as we all act on what we believe we know, whether it is true or not.

[@thomasedgerley7453]

"An individual could be a genius in quantum physics, however this knowledge would be useless if the individual didn't have the practical knowledge to get out of bed in the morning" How does Stephen Hawking fit into this?

[@canyondust8758]

Stephen Hawking knows how to get out of bed (or at least used to), he just couldn't do it.

[@GrimNHTl]

@@canyondust8758 I think it meant laziness.

[@KatyWantsToGo]

Thomas Edgerley he is one of the biggest jokes they ever played on us, research this guy a little and I’d be surprised if you didn’t come to the same conclusion I have, SH is a brain dead actor.

[@Blankarte]

Kim Peek?

He knew whom to call to get out of bed 😉

[@adamlees1720]

Great videos, philosophy has been the most intimidating subject for me and others. I understand it's only a groundwork but I know where to go next now

[@rvc121]

Epistemology doesn't have to start with fear. Knowledge is crucial for our survival and prusuit of happiness, that is why it is so important. We need a theorey of knowledge because it's not easy or automatic to gain knowledge about the world. Epistemology should help us understand how to gain true knowledge and distinguish it from false ideas. Epistemology is crucial for understanding the world and because of it for survival and happiness. It's main goal is not to prove we can understand the world. But to give us the tools dor gaining more knowledge.

[@komariyahsiti8570]

Sangat menarik, sempat bingung mengubah dari bahasa Inggris ke bahasa Indonesia. Alhamdulillah sudah bisa sedikit memahami isinya

[@jameshartley668]

Great stuff...love it...

[@Desiklown]

This was fantastic. Thanks so much for putting this together, bro!

[@1995yuda]

Thank you so very much.

[@havenbastion]

There are two ways of knowing - empirical probability (including facts and expectations of results from given actions under given circumstances) and logical necessity (semantic). Justified true belief is not the definition of knowledge as it is circular - justified belief is the marker for truth. Epistemological warrant is the necessary and sufficient definition of truth, although all warrants are not created equal and the bar may be raised with the introduction of new information.

[@Stupidd5553]

I'm 11 years late but this is a great video.

[@mjb14722]

Excellent video. I look forward to the rest in the series.

[@carlosjavier2374]

Great video thanks.

[@futbolendvd]

We humans can not hold the same believes and fears of 2000 years ago. Those who persist to live in past will be doomed to their unsupported fears. For the rest of us , new challenges lay ahead. Starvation and social equality I are just two of them.

[@denkotroi1440]

Dafuq

[@creativeitprogramming9931]

Yaa earlier we were assuming that the earth was flat but in the relegious book of Hindus which are from India . It was written that the earth is spherical in shape and their was an full topic on their book about geography. That's great.

[@peterbengo2286]

Thanks alot I have been enriched

[@lilikmakhfiyah8516]

interesting video.because by looking this video, I undestand epistemolgy

[@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?"

[@DBag-1212]

thanks for the video, but please invest in a pop filter they aren't expensive and would increase vocal quality immensely. But I do understand this video is 3 years old.

[@Armando7654]

If the nature of knowledge is induction and if induction is incomplete or a method undefined then it follows that knowledge doesn't have nature or that it isn't knowledge that naturalism is referring to.

[@Friemelkubus]

These videos are great. Subscribed. What's with the uploader approval though ?

[@debbieleary121]

One can have a head full of knowledge from what they have "memorised" from what they've been taught, whereas an intelligent person will research their own knowledge by thinking out of the box and question's everything

[@williamjayaraj2244]

Thank you.

[@abirelshaban]

So, if we aren't in need of theory of knowledge, Why scholars like Crotty define epistemology as "a theory of knowledge" and make understanding the term more complicated to us... I would agree more with the concept that epistemology is how do we know what we know, since that somehow what's been included within this video... Thanks... I will use it in my presentation tomorrow... Generally, I find it helpful : )

[@dabunnyrabbit2620]

we need a theory/philosophy because we are working within a human brain, meaning no ones experience will be the same. it is a tool to help you give meaning to the meaningless.

[@ltgood]

When at at ocean beach I look at the horizon it looks flat. When I have climbed a high peak I can see for a very long way and see the horizon is flat. Am I to assume that my sense of eye sight and perception is wrong? What other sense and perception is wrong? How can I navigate this world with this doubt in mind?

[@TriggeredPeasoup]

KNOOOLEDGE, great vid thanks !

[@cullenwegener6403]

+Stoic Smoker Likely the only one who gets the joke, I am.

[@FirstLast-mf4rr]

+Cullen Wegener I read while hanging out in my garage... wit mah lambergeeny

[@cullenwegener6403]

In the Hollywood Hills with $47 in your bnk account?

[@cullenwegener6403]

Never trust anyone who's never been punched in the face... with a lambergeeny in a garaaaajh

[@cullenwegener6403]

Whatever

[@Moshikashitenai]

You've misunderstood my question. I wan't talking about other gods, I was talking about other things. Many Christians, in my experience, try to tell me that everything we give more attention to than god, including our own life and family, is an idol, and they use Psalm 96:5 or the Ten Commandments to illustrate that point, but are idols just relegated to the world of gods, and if not, why are things idols, noting that the word for idol in that time meant a physical representation of a god.

[@pronoynath1171]

Is HP Lovecraft a proponent of this "Theory of Knowledge " idea??

[@NBDYSPCL]

Is language propositional or practical?

[@chewemwanakaoma6921]

Philosophy is quite confusing to understand, thanks for the books available,not forgetting Aristotles contributions

[@mbengiepeter965]

Do our sensory apparatus have processing units? I think that they only collect data, and our brains processs the data and make conclusions.

[@ibrahimtamimy]

Do you have one of those massive philosophical ideas which you think are amazing and will revolutionise the world, but find out that some person has already done it. Basically how I felt throughout this video.

[@BossChronicles]

What can you do with a philosophy degree ?

[@spammeplenty3626]

+Shawn Afshar It covers up the hole you put in the wall after realizing you wasted your time and money on it.

[@mareina8139]

+Shawn Afshar if you are not planning on going to grad school, or law school.. you should not waste your time.

[@lupita11alcantar]

Shawn Afshar make KZbin videos

[@rh001YT]

A comment of the "fear" bit: One should always be alert to separate useful info from poety. The "fear" bit is poetry. Of real, non-poetic stuff, there is curiousity, sometimes with profit as the goal, sometimes not, for instance, idle curiousity. But with idle curiousity sometimes, upon taking something apart to see how it works, a new knowledge about those workings can suddenly spawn thoughts of how to profit from it. After enough people have been seen by the others to gain from thinking, deconstructing and tinkering, some of the others give it a go. Some, but not all will find profit, and so yet more people are seen to be profiting, and yet more give it a go. After some time more difficult-to-deconstruct things are taken on, and mere poking and pulling apart may not yield any new knowledge as had been the case earlier. Discouraged, the knowledge seekers sit down for a cup of tea, and chat among themselves. And this is when they begin to consider broader ideas, looking to see exactly what did work in the past and why. And they think, and somehow their thinking goes to seeming unrelated stuff, from which they extract a rule, and so they come up with something like panning for gold, cuz the gold being heavy can be swirled into it's own orbit in the pan, a low orbit, allowing most of the unwanted stuff to be easily spilled out. That idea, a guess really, may have come from at one time swirling into a small area the sand that had blown into the bowl of drinking water, then pouring off the water into a clean vessel. At a later time, a guess applied to a problem may not have worked, but then another one did. So then the challenge was to move from fairly good guesses at how to extract the core idea from one experience to the task at hand, to how to make more good guess-extractions and fewer bad ones. Such was the beginning of theory of knowledge, looking at which guesses worked well and then extracting, now one more level up, what it was about all of them that resulted in success. This was thinking about the thinking. And gradually some thinking was weeded out even without need for testing it. And as enough weeds were pulled a garden began to emerge. And this has worked out well, driven by profit motive in the crudest sense, as well as just wanting to be safer and more comfortable, and aided by curiousity. As for the skepticism...how can we know we've got it right? What if there's stuff we can't know? We base the rightness on profitability..on what else could it be based? And if there is stuff we can't know? Well no more can be said of it.

[@chenmarkson7413]

My Notes: - Epistemology = TOK - Ways to obtain K: - Empiricism: via sensory experience - Sometimes sense decieves: illusory nature - Sensory equipment of K affects perception of reality - Rationalism: via reasoning - Types of K: - Practical: "K how" - Propositional: K of facts Need for TOK - Fear -> Need for TOK: - Fear of fraility of senses, intellect, memory, authority, regarding K - Fear of "I know nothing" - TOK attempts to attain K better; remove obstacles along the quest.

[@chenmarkson7413]

Abbreviations: TOK = Theory of Knowledge; K = Knowledge

[@chibifoods]

What do you mean for strictly emotional reasons? I don't get it...

[@jeremygodwin4069]

Is fear the root of belief? Why should one choose to believe (not yet knowing)? Is seeking knowledge partly rooted in fear?

[@jabibgalt5551]

I belief is not-fully-justified knowledge. One can choose to believe something that benefits him, regardless of the truthfulness of that belief. For instance, I personally choose to believe that there is such thing as "divine justice", just because it makes me feel so good, and yet I can never know that for sure. Fear can surely drive many actions in every living organism, but I don't think we began knowing things out of fear. Maybe we strive to know for the fear of dying. But I think curiosity and evolution are responsible for humans acquiring the faculty of reason, which is what allow us to gain conceptual knowledge. Good questions, you got me thinking.

[@bradmckay7750]

i have never seen a defensible argument for anything besides empiricism. it blows my mind that this video tries to say that because our sense can be deceived then we must have another way of determining knowledge. But the way we have determined that our senses can be deceived, is THROUGH EMPIRICISM. rationalism in fact is what uses a priori beliefs and presuppositions, and filters all knowledge through this presupposition. But if the presupposition is wrong, then all of the data filtered through it will also be wrong (garbage in garbage out). empiricists don't have a presupposition that our sensory data is 'correct'. We only know that this data exists and is thus our only way to perceive reality. What we believe about that data, we believe after the fact. When we determine through evidence that we cannot always trust the input we receive from our senses, we can then modify how we understand the input we are receiving. At no point does empiricism address the "truth" of what our senses reveal, only that our senses are our only means of data acquisition and that we must work within that framework to acquire knowledge, and modify our understanding of that sensory input as more empirical evidence is is discovered. The "truth" of something is only established after we have enough data from our senses to make a valid truth claim.

[@johnnyseemore7475]

How hard have you tried to look? Did you do any real academic research on the topic? Did you ask any professors at a college/university of where you could find some readings or arguments? Do you know the history of philosophical thought regarding some of these issues?

[@wwvd2456]

Simply read the Critique of Pure Reason. the models of reality that science creates to INTERPRET data are not 'experienced' but make intelligible, the data itself. We all have access to the things that 'produce' sense data, whether or not that data should be trusted and WHAT we can derive from this sense data and HOW to interpret this data cannot be answered by EXPERIENCE ALONE.

[@AliJamil539]

Epistemological and ontological idealism existed long before the empirical method was even discovered. Empiricism does not provide certainty on the ontology of things, it only provides descriptions about things as they 'appear' and not how they ARE, in and of themselves. One can only remain agnostic about a 'mind-independent' reality but my point is that sense data does not presuppose epistemological skepticism

[@HitomiAyumu]

Karl Popper refuted empiricism years ago.

[@mumia030303]

Ali Jamil interesting. but of course we can't know how they ARE in Reality, but it doesn't mean we dont know they exist. ie the apparent reality to us is not the same way as saying it is idealistic world. Rather it is a physical world with access to its appearances by our sense experience.

[@BasedGodism]

very nice

[@Djorouh]

What about intuition? It also contributes to the first step toward knowledge.

[@jabrifahad]

are you sure?

[@Djorouh]

Fahad Al Jabri I don't troll, I state facts. www.sciencemag.org/content/156/3775/605.abstract

[@Janbees]

Loudeu Cartesian And how do you know your facts are true?

[@Djorouh]

Masked Turk Do your research and come correct me if I am wrong. I would appreciate that.

[@francisgallant1479]

Loudeu Cartesian GOD good answer you gave im

[@iberty-zl5bv]

finding this really intresting,keep on keeping on,6922!!

[@elias1579]

This really gets my gears going.

[@dbanddz]

its so confusing

[@nahzrat]

Senses aren't vaild or invalid. Validity only refers to the form of an argument. That's basic critical thinking, and proof is only related to mathematics (i.e. a mathematical proof). Asking for "proof" of something (a matter of fact) is just the sort of sloppy talk that goes on in ordinary conversation, but those terms have very specific meanings attached to them.

[@Moshikashitenai]

Why is validity a requirement? Why cannot scientists discover truths (as in observed recurrences) about their sensory illusions? Is that not a truth about a reference? Is not a truth about a reference but one aspect of truth? And what is the difference between your reference and the reference of a naturalist? And does your reference have any predictive capabilities? If so, are those capabilities those that could not possibly have come about from the standpoint of scientific naturalism?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

How is wealth obtained ? Surely, one must start with something of value -- for example, one's own labor, skill, or talent. From this initial value, more value is obtained by using this value as the basis for adding more value. Neither value, nor wealth, nor knowledge arises from a vacuum.

[@harya7881]

do you want to display video of introduction of epistemology in Indonesia language?

[@joemahony4198]

How do we know what we know?

[@elunico13]

Cool! Let me guess you reason that your reasoning is valid, right?

[@johnathanjacobs2569]

It doesnt make sense what i just said.........but its true. Its a truth for me at least. We cant break down and categorize humanity. Humanity is an art...not a science. Philosophy is a recollection of a deep conversation with your best friend the first time you took mushrooms and drank forties at 6 a.m. on a couch that you decided to pull out into the front yard while experiencing fungal epiphanies. I love this shit. But alas none of it matters. It doesnt mean it osnt worth talking about but.....it seems lime philosophy is geared at understanding and making humanity better...you cannot improve upon existence. Existence ; this manifestation is perfect. Philosophy is nothing more than an indepth play by play of a soccer game. This is me watching sports

[@MrTechFox]

Where is the rest?

[@keen6008]

sir .. would you mind if you give me the text of this video .. because i want to translate it to arabic .. ??

[@academyofideas]

+keen Of course! You can find it here: academyofideas.com/2012/08/introduction-to-epistemology/

[@afaf233]

as a student of philosophy and a graduate i find that philosophy is useless because you will always have to define the terms....but its even worse than that cos you have to define what define means.....then as you try to do that you will find out that you will be getting no where fast....hence for 100s pof yrs you will find that no philosopher has been able to find out discover anything or bring us nearer to an undrestanding of anything...philosophy is the ability to have a conversation and discussion that will last to eternity and you will find yourself as you climb the ladder of knowledge that you have not even reached the fist step but merely grovelling at the base bumping blinly into holes and pitfalls and blackholes of theories and total nonesense.....long ago it was discovered that you can not make money from philosophy hence it has been an occupation of losers and not many people desire to become philosphers.....if it was about money then all of us would be philosophers...the only knowledge that there is is mathematical knowledge which is the basis ND HEARBEAT OF ALL REALITY...even epistemological questions can be brought down to simple mathematics and logic of words and what they mean and what they don mean....

[@delingvaldson288]

No Gettier? :(

[@darillus1]

the earth rotates the sun? or the earth rotates around the sun?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

That's because explanation requires propositional knowledge, whereas doing and showing requires practical knowledge. I can explain to someone how to drive a car by using propositional knowledge, and I can show them how to drive a car by using my practical knowledge of actually driving a car. Most people require both kinds of knowledge for the purpose of learning, but, ultimately, knowing is a practical art -- NOT an explanatory one !

[@sisyphus645]

But if knowledge is justified true belief, how do you justify a belief without using another belief? The cycle bottoms up in faith, an unjustified belief. In other words, any “knowledge” we know of is based on some unjustified beliefs. And that worries me.

[@Moshikashitenai]

Okay, then what does the word "worship" mean to you?

[@anharuzali]

Are you british or American?

[@academyofideas]

Canadian.

[@lukasfraley]

watching a video on epistemology. starts out explaining rationalism as ideas from previous lives. ( that's an oxymoron isn't it)

[@42monologue]

If I pointed towards a hill and said that is a blue donkey but it really was a blue horse . But there happens to be blue donkey. Don't I hold a justified true belief? Does that mean is have knowledge in this case,? knowledge= truth ? Or not.

[@teaglass3750]

And now the question comes: how do we know what we think we know is true?