Theories of Knowledge Attainment: Epistemology and Ontology - Term Paper Example

WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY Introduction Epistemology represents the part of philosophy that studies knowledge and everything connected with it. The main questions of this part of philosophy are what knowledge is, how we get knowledge, why we get it and what are the limitations. These questions still remain a concern of many scientists. In searching truth several theories were defined. Each of them has special approach to the question of knowledge acquisition, to the concepts of truth, belief, reliability of statements and how assumptions turn into proved statements we believe in. The given paper will discuss theories of knowledge attainment. The link of epistemology into ontology and the way epistemology shape social research in general. The subject of epistemology According to scientists, there is a significant difference between too expressions: “I know that” and “I know how”. For instance, it is well-known that 1+1=2, however, here we could think not only about the result, but about the process itself: how there two numbers should be summed up. When we state that we “know” something, the question arises why we “believe” that. When we “believe’ in something we usually think that this “something” will not make us disappointed, for example we may believe in our national basketball team and its victory. However, epistemology considers “belief” from another point of view. For example, when we believe that the grass is green that means that we consider the statement that the grass is green to be correct. Every statement is simply a preposition of someone else and it does not mean that everybody must believe it .At the same time, if something represents a real fact, it is true. The main controversy in this area is concentrated on study of the nature of knowledge and its connection to related concepts: information, conviction, and rationalization. It is connected with the method of knowledge acquisition and uncertainty about various statements. Theories of knowledge acquisition There are three definite theories of knowledge attainment: Empiricism, Rationalism and Constructivism. The different arguments of rationalism and empiricism and the controversy that occurs on the base on this difference is connected to different experience of the people in their attempts to obtain knowledge. According to rationalists, there are significant methods to obtain information autonomously of experience at the same time as empiricists consider experience to be very essential in knowledge acquisition (Fodor 1975). The vision of rationalists is usually built in the following way: they state that sometimes our knowledge obtained through intuition is more reliable, than that obtained from experience. Then, they explain the way our reason gives us the necessary information. Empiricists in their turn show corresponding lines of idea. They begin with demonstrating the important role of experience in knowledge acquisition providing different proofs. The main idea of Empiricists is that every concept we take from the book should be proved by experience and their main task to disprove the rationalists’ statements that the reason is the most important in knowledge acquisition (Fodor 1975). Rationalism Rationalists consider intuition as a form of coherent perception. Rationally perceiving a statement, people only see it as factual in order to shape an exact, reasonable certainty. Deduction represents a method applied to make a conclusion about the information received through intuition using convincing proofs. Therefore, insight and reasoning give people opportunity to obtain autonomously of experience. Leinbiz states: The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. … From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them… (Leinbiz 1704) Thus, rationalists believe that mathematics is predictable, because of the insight and reasoning. They say the same also about moral belief, the existence of God etc. Rationalists change the strong point of their ideas by altering their perception of reliability and doubt. Some of them consider the proved statements to be out of any possible hesitation that means that information given by insight and reasoning is absolutely reliable. However, the attitude of others towards reliability is more conventional, as they argue that proved statement provided by insight and reasoning can be rationally doubted. It is also possible to trace different attitude of different rationalists towards intuition. Some of them consider insight to be fail-safe, stating that everything people intuit can be considered reliable and right, at the same time as others assume that the knowledge provided by intuition can be false (Stitch 1975). Empiricism Empiricism underlines the function of practice and confirmation in the development of concepts. It completely declines the reliability of intuition. On the contrary, they state that the knowledge depends on experience. They consider experience to be the only reliable source of concepts. In view of the fact that reason not supported by experience can’t provide people with knowledge, it definitely can’t offer good and reliable knowledge. Knowledge provided by reason is highly dependent on experience, as it can easily disprove any fact provided by intuition and reasoning (Chomsky 1988). Empiricists do not state that people have experimental knowledge. They argue that experience is the only way to obtain knowledge. Sometimes Empiricists support the rationalists’ opinion that experience can’t provide people with knowledge. That means that the knowledge given to us by the reason and intuition can be primary, but it can’t be reliable if not proved by the experience. Locke states: The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of those simple ideas, it observes in things without; and taking notice how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before; reflecting also on what passes within itself, and observing a constant change of its ideas, sometimes by the impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes by the determination of its own choice; and concluding from what it has so constantly observed to have been, that the like changes will for the future be made in the same things, by like agents, and by the like ways, considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that change; and so comes by that idea which we call power (Locke 1690). The importance of controversy for social research Main controversy between Rationalism and Empiricism develops the connection between them, because the followers of these theories express the ideas on the same questions. Speaking about the reliability of any statement, Rationalist states that the main ideas needed to believe that the statement is true are instinctive and provided by the insight, and this knowledge is more reliable than given to us by the experience. Empiricist in his turn argues that experience represents the only reliable source of knowledge. Hume states: Suitably to this experience, therefore, we may define a cause to be an object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second… We may, therefore, suitably to this experience, form another definition of cause and call it an object followed by another, and whose appearance always conveys the thought of the other. (Hume 1948) Reason can give us the ideas about certain statements, however, these ideas are received only through experience at the same time as any certain conclusions about them can be made also with the help of experience, because any assumptions should be proved and only then they can be considered as knowledge. Each of them is right and the controversy is very important, because the truth can be gained only through controversy. Epistemology and ontology The link between epistemology and ontology represents a very interesting issue. Epistemology represents the study of knowledge, at the same time as ontology studies nature of being. People develop theories of knowledge inside of epistemology in order to hold up the ontological ideas they develop. The importance of epistemology and ontology for social research Ontology determines the basic areas of actuality. Ontology differs depending on the focal point of analysis. Every discipline, every investigational area has its ontology and, therefore, epistemology. For example, a scientist who researches animals distinguishes the parts of their organism, habits and behavior. In the same way a researcher in the field of sociology have innate and open assumptions about areas of actuality that are basic and linked in the individual’s and communal arrangements he investigates. Formal ontology investigates common concepts about actuality, at the same time as domain ontology researches definite fields of reality. Epistemology explains, how we obtain knowledge. The methods of these two investigators are different and depend on their research area. They use diverse procedures in order to investigate the area they are concentrated on. They apply diverse methodical approaches investigating definite areas with epistemology and ontology (Hampton 1977). Some scientists state that ontology studies spiritual problems such as perpetuity or perception at the same time as epistemology works with external manifestation. For example, notwithstanding that it is determined that every psychological state has definite characteristics, every person experiences every state differently. It is very difficult to take into account both of these statements at the same time. In order to make the process of comprehension easy, it is necessary to eliminate the separation between epistemology and ontology and consider them as closely connected sciences: …the ontological question cannot be dealt with in isolation. The nature of the existence of mathematical objects is integral to a philosophy of mathematics. My remarks thus far bear on this issue. The objects with which mathematics deals have existence external to the mind of man. They exist in the mind of God. For many of these objects (particularly the finite ones) we can point to an external referent as well. Finite groups can all be realized as subgroups of sets of permutations on finite sets for example. Even infinite groups can be realized as subgroups of the group of permutations on a suitably large set. There are however some objects which as yet we have found no referent or model. Nevertheless I believe such objects and systems have existence prior to our discovery or postulation of them. There need not be external referents for everything, for surely God did not exhaust his mathematical knowledge in the creation (Hampton 1977). Feminist Ontology and Epistemology Feminism considers science to be based on the patriarchal principles. Nevertheless, science, if considered from feminist point of view, appears to be really logical in its method. Having eliminated sexism, zealously denounced by feminists, it is possible to investigate the world around as it really is. Feminism forms its own principles, however, they are really human principles, not just the point of view of women (Alcoff 1988). Feminist Critical theory, nevertheless, includes a great number of really censorious and primordially feminist fundamentals, mainly because it represents a real confrontation to main Western ideas. It disputes learning practice together with its theoretical, mental, and gender perspective. Women’s knowledge forms a really unusual vision of actuality, a different approach to understanding the world around and as a result it has a completely different ontology and epistemology, which are liberal and represent the connection of different elements (Benhabib 1992). Conclusion Every research applies epistemology and its theories. The theories of epistemology have different, but closely connected approaches. Their connection is demonstrated by the empiricists’ acceptance of the fact that the experience itself can’t provide people with knowledge. Every research represents the way to get knowledge and in order to make the process of knowledge acquisition easier, it is necessary to eliminate the separation between epistemology and ontology and consider them as closely connected sciences. Also it is proved that tendency like feminism creates its own epistemology and ontology based on the unique experience, which also should be taken into account in modern social research. Works Cited Hume, D. (1748). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- Merrill, 1955. Leinbiz, G. (1704) New Essays on Human Understanding, in Leinbiz: Philosophical Writings. ed. G.H.R. Parkinson, transl. Mary Morris and G.H.R. Parkinson, London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1973. Locke, J. (1690). An Essay on Human Understanding. ed. Woolhouse, Roger, London: Peguin Books, 1997. Alcoff, Linda. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 13: 3, 405-433. Benhabib, Seyla. (1992). Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. Benhabib, Seyla. (1995). Feminism and postmodernism. in Seyla Benhabib, Judith Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fodor, J. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hampton, Charles R. (1977) Epistemology to ontology. Brabenec Stitch, S. (1975). Innate Ideas. Berkeley, CA: California University Press Read More