Verifying Epistemologies

I would like to start a topic on the notion of verifying epistemologies.

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 468:
... an epystemology that is known to be able to demonstrate itself as reliable...

---

This is the comment that spurred my desire to discuss this, but this being off-topic in that thread, I decided to start a new one.In response to the notion of there being such a thing as a demonstrably reliable epistemology I maintain that it is impossible to verify an epistemology, where verification consists of evidence external to the epistemology that supports its claimsprimarily the claims being that 'X is true, i.e., real, by virtue of being knowable', where X may be anything from a particular thing to an entire class of things with or without a common feature. I deny the possibility of such evidence, and believe that the best any epistemology can achieve is internal consistency, but never verification.Lacking the ability to verify an epistemology, I find it incredible to claim one to be demonstrably reliable, as demonstrable reliability is inherently a reliability which can be backed by external evidence (that is, verified), with reliability merely being the notion of believing in the veracity of something. Furthermore, an epistemology is inherently incapable of proving its reliability of its own means, as per the nature of an epistemology.So, how is it that an epistemology can demonstrate itself as reliable? Is it possible to verify an epistemology?JonEdited by Jon, : Removed message to admins.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Thread copied here from the Verifying Epistemologies thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

OK, I'm gonna have to quote Hume again.

How do you know that?

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

This seems like the kind of philosophy you get when you forget that, regardless of whether or not your epistemology can be subject to external verification, you can still get hit by a bus.If you approach the problem from the standpoint of the primacy of thought, then yes, you get to the post you wrote. But thought is not primal; reality is. Thought is something brains do in the physical world. Viewed from that perspective concerns about epistemologies can always be reduced to "what gets us to the most accurate model of reality."

Hume still said it best.

Hi, Crashfrog. Pragmatism is an epistemology.If you're saying that the reliability of an epistemology is determined based on pragmatic standards, then obviously pragmatism is going to win the contest.This is the whole point of Jon's post: epistemology is essentially the set of rules used to judge the reliability or validity of an idea.The consequence of this is that, in order to judge the reliability or validity of an epistemology, you have to use an epistemology.If you're using the standards of an epistemology to judge the reliability of that very epistemology, all you’ve got is internal consistency, as Jon says.If you're using the standards of an epistemology to judge the reliability of a different epistemology, I would be very troubled if you were able to judge it reliable.It's a real logical quandary, but only if you actually care about metaphysics or ultimate reality.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hmm, no, that's wrong. If it is backed by substantial external evidence, then it is corroborated. But corroborated is weaker than verified. I'm not sure how philosophers use those terms. As I see it, to say that it is reliable is to say that you can rely on it. That's pretty much a pragmatic requirement that it works well enough. To say that it is verified is to say that its truth has been proved, which I see as far stronger.

Now you're just being a total asshole. I care about not being hit by buses. If logic puts you into a position where you can't know that reality is real, then that's a fundamental failure of logic, not of the program to develop accurate models about reality. Jon is engaged in a parlor game when he should be looking out for errant buses.

By comparing the conclusions derived from it with reality. If two competing internally consistent epistemologies are used to derive mutually exclusive conclusions with no way of testing which is correct then you would have a point.But if one method of knowing concludes that jumping out of a 20th floor window will result in you becoming pavement pizza and the other concludes that you will float feather like onto the nearest cloud - These conclusion can be simply tested by leaping out of the aforementioned window. It is possible to work out which methods of knowing work in practise and which don't - Yes.

Jon has replied to all the above messages, but the posters will miss his response as he typed it on his piano.

Do multiple people, using multiple methodologies derived from the epistemology come to the same conclusions (while blind to the conclusions other have come to)? If they do, it's reliable.Is it TRUE? Sounds like a nonsense quesiton.Is it a fair use of the word 'reliable'? Seems to be.Is reliability a good thing? Up to you to decide, but an argument can surely be made.You can't say that you 'know' an epistemology, it just doesn't make sense philosophically or gramatically. You can't show an epistemology to be true (ie., verify it), again it makes no sense. You can just reason that since you want to be sure of the conclusions (otherwise, why make them), so you go for the 'reliable' epistemologies and the methods derived from them.That is to say - Hume got it right. Epistemology is a human tool decsigned for human purposes. Whatever epistemological method you choose to employ, it should allow you to survive the day at the very least!

And you can still go to Hell.It is not about what happens or does not happen, it is about knowing what is real. Without basing your conclusion on anything relevant to an epistemology, how do you know getting hit by a bus is real? How do you know going to Hell when you die is not?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I don't, but stating it as being True makes it seem important. Ultimately, nothing is knowable, but I was going to wait until a few pages into the thread to reveal that. Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I am flattered that you would conceive of an alternate reality in which I play the piano. Tell me, am I any good?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!