Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Knowledge

Knowledge is the cognitive relation a bears to a when the believes the , the is true, and the is justified, though this tripartite analysis has faced significant challenges. Originating in , particularly Plato's exploration in works like the Theaetetus, the concept centers on distinguishing reliable from mere true opinion or unfounded . examines the sources of knowledge—such as sensory , rational , , and —and debates whether justification requires infallible foundations or arises from coherent networks or reliable processes attuned to causal structures. Gettier's 1963 counterexamples revealed cases of justified true undermined by luck, prompting alternatives like , which prioritizes beliefs produced by truth-conducive mechanisms over internalist justification. Knowledge manifests in forms including propositional ("knowing that"), procedural ("knowing how"), and by acquaintance, with empirical studies underscoring its adaptive value in predicting environmental contingencies. Ongoing controversies highlight the absence of consensus, as theories like , positing self-justifying , compete with coherentism's holistic mutual support, reflecting tensions between evidential standards and real-world acquisition.

Core Concepts

Definitions of Knowledge

The English term "knowledge" originates from the "knowleche" or "knaweleche," derived from the verb "knowen" meaning "to know" combined with an element akin to "-leche," related to or , tracing back to "cnāwan" signifying "to recognize" or "to perceive." This etymology emphasizes an active process of or acquaintance with facts or objects. In ordinary usage, knowledge denotes information, facts, skills, or awareness acquired through experience, learning, or education, often distinguished from mere opinion by its basis in evidence or reliability. For instance, knowing how to ride a bicycle involves procedural competence rather than abstract proposition, while knowing that the Earth orbits the Sun requires factual correspondence to observable reality. Philosophically, the dominant traditional analysis defines knowledge as justified true belief (JTB), a formulation attributed to in his dialogue Theaetetus, where he proposes that knowledge is true belief accompanied by an account or justification, distinguishing it from mere true opinion that could arise by luck. Under JTB, a subject S knows a p if: (1) p is true, (2) S believes p, and (3) S is justified in believing p. This tripartite structure prevailed in Western for over two millennia until Edmund Gettier's 1963 paper presented counterexamples—cases of justified true beliefs that intuitively fail to constitute knowledge due to epistemic luck, such as beliefs true by coincidence rather than reliable cognitive processes. Post-Gettier reforms have proposed alternatives, including the requirement that justification track truth (no false lemmas in the justification chain) or that knowledge entails belief produced by a reliable belief-forming , as in reliabilist theories. Some epistemologists defend refined of JTB, arguing that proper fourth conditions—such as defeatability or causal connection to the fact—resolve Gettier cases without abandoning the core analysis. These debates highlight that no definition exists, with knowledge often characterized minimally as a of cognitive success involving accurate of , but varying accounts prioritize factors like internalist justification versus externalist reliability. Empirical studies in , such as folk epistemology surveys, indicate that lay intuitions align more closely with JTB augmented by anti-luck conditions than pure .

Traditional Analysis: Justified True Belief

The traditional of knowledge holds that a S knows a p p is true, S believes p, and S is justified in believing p. This tripartite structure, known as justified true belief (JTB), dominated epistemological thought for centuries, providing a to distinguish knowledge from mere or . The conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient, meaning the absence of any one precludes knowledge, while their conjunction establishes it. Plato first articulated a version of this analysis in his dialogue Theaetetus, composed around 369 BCE, where proposes that knowledge is "true with an account" (), interpreted as requiring justification beyond mere truth and to ensure reliability. In the text, at sections 201c-d, distinguishes knowledge from true judgments lacking rational explanation, emphasizing that justification elevates to knowledge by connecting it causally to the facts via reason. This formulation addressed earlier Socratic concerns with unstable opinions, as seen in the , where true without fixation (justification) is deemed unstable and insufficient for genuine understanding. The truth condition stipulates that for S to know p, p must correspond to ; false beliefs, even if sincerely held and justified, cannot constitute knowledge, as they fail to track actual states of affairs. The belief condition requires that S actually hold p in mind as accepted, excluding cases where S lacks conviction, such as unwitting truths or denials of evident facts. Justification demands that S's belief be supported by sufficient or reasoning, typically evidentialist in nature, where the grounds causally explain the belief's reliability rather than mere psychological comfort. Proponents argued this prevents lucky guesses, as in scenarios where a subject correctly identifies a distant figure as a sheep due to misleading evidence that coincidentally aligns with truth, lacking proper justificatory linkage. This analysis influenced from antiquity through the early , underpinning accounts in thinkers like Descartes, who sought indubitable justification via clear and distinct perceptions, and , who emphasized as the basis for justified beliefs about the external world. By formalizing knowledge as JTB, it enabled rigorous analysis of epistemic norms, prioritizing causal connections between belief-forming processes and truth over subjective confidence alone.

Modern Challenges and Reforms

In 1963, published "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", presenting counterexamples that undermine the sufficiency of justified true belief (JTB) for knowledge. These cases involve a subject holding a true belief with apparent justification, yet the belief's truth arises coincidentally through luck or misleading , such as inferring a false that happens to connect to a true conclusion. For instance, if Smith justifiably believes Jones owns a based on , and believes "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket" due to Jones's situation, but Smith himself gets the job and has ten coins unbeknownst to him, the belief qualifies as JTB without intuitive knowledge. Gettier problems highlight how justification can decouple from truth-tracking, prompting widespread rejection of JTB as an adequate analysis among analytic epistemologists by the late . One prominent reform is , advanced by in works from 1976 onward, which defines knowledge as a true produced by a reliable belief-forming process— one that yields truth with high probability across counterfactual applications. Process reliabilism avoids Gettier cases by requiring causal reliability rather than internal justification; for example, perceptual beliefs formed by functioning senses count as knowledge if the process reliably tracks environmental facts, irrespective of the subject's reflective access to its reliability. Critics argue it struggles with "swampman" scenarios, where a duplicate entity forms identical true beliefs without a reliable history, or with cases yielding truths sans causal link. Nonetheless, variants like safety-based reliabilism, emphasizing beliefs' resistance to nearby error possibilities, persist in contemporary . Virtue epistemology, developed by figures like since the 1980s, reconceives in terms of intellectual virtues—reliable dispositions such as careful reasoning or perceptual acuity—such that a true manifests the agent's epistemic in appropriate conditions. This approach integrates reliabilist elements by viewing virtues as safety-conferring faculties, addressing Gettier luck through demands for "animal knowledge" (first-order reliability) elevated to "reflective knowledge" via higher-order awareness of one's . Proponents claim it aligns with intuitive attributions of , as in expert testimony where skill overrides accidental truth. Detractors note potential over-intellectualization, as everyday often lacks explicit virtue reflection, and challenges in distinguishing virtues from mere reliable processes. Contextualism offers another response, positing that "knowledge" attributions vary by conversational context, with stricter standards (e.g., ruling out skeptical hypotheses) in philosophical discourse but looser ones in practical settings. Keith DeRose's 1995 framework treats epistemic justification as context-sensitive, allowing JTB to hold in low-stakes contexts while Gettier-like intuitions arise only under heightened scrutiny. This resolves paradoxes without altering core conditions but faces empirical pushback from ordinary language studies showing inconsistent shifts in knowledge ascriptions across stakes. Despite these reforms, no post-Gettier theory commands consensus; debates continue over whether knowledge admits reductive analysis or requires primitive status, with ongoing empirical work in experimental philosophy testing folk intuitions against proposals.

Types and Distinctions

Propositional Knowledge

Propositional knowledge, often termed knowledge-that, consists of justified beliefs in propositions—declarative statements that possess a , such as " boils at 100 degrees at under standard ." This type of knowledge is central to , as it involves grasping facts or truths about the world, distinguishable by its embeddability under "that"-clauses in . For example, a person knows propositionally that the occurred in 480 BCE if their belief aligns with historical evidence, such as Herodotus's accounts corroborated by archaeological findings from the pass. Unlike , which entails skills like or solving equations through practice, propositional knowledge does not require demonstrable ability but rather cognitive assent to verifiable truths. , in (1949), critiqued conflating the two, arguing that knowing that one can swim differs causally from the embodied competence itself, with propositional claims failing to capture motoric expertise. Empirical studies, such as those on expertise acquisition, support this by showing that factual recall (propositional) correlates weakly with performance proficiency in domains like chess, where grandmasters excel via over explicit rule recitation. Historically, the analysis of propositional knowledge traces to Plato's (c. 380 BCE), where posits it as true stabilized by an or reason, distinguishing it from mere , as illustrated by the jury example: correct verdicts without rationale remain unstable and non-transmissible. This framework influenced subsequent philosophy, emphasizing propositional knowledge's role in rational inquiry, though modern debates its sufficiency amid Gettier-style counterexamples involving lucky justifications. Within propositional knowledge, subtypes include empirical propositions derived from observation (e.g., "The of water is 100°C") and logical ones from deduction (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried").

Non-Propositional Knowledge

Non-propositional knowledge, also designated as knowledge-how or , consists of abilities to execute actions or deploy skills competently, independent of articulating underlying facts as propositions. This contrasts with propositional knowledge, which involves true beliefs about states of affairs that can be expressed declaratively. For instance, an individual may possess the non-propositional knowledge required to swim fluidly across a through repeated immersion and adjustment, even if unable to enumerate the precise involved./07:_Epistemology/7.01:_What_Epistemology_Studies) Philosopher advanced the distinction in his 1946 presidential address, positing that practical intelligence—manifested in "knowing how" to perform tasks like tying knots or debating effectively—precedes and escapes reduction to theoretical "knowing that" claims. Ryle rejected the intellectualist doctrine, which he termed a "legend," asserting it conflates episodic propositional grasp with the dispositional capacities enabling skillful conduct across varied circumstances. He illustrated this by noting that a book of rules for intelligent play, such as in chess, does not equip one to play unless one already knows apply them, revealing a foundational layer of non-propositional competence. Subsequent epistemological inquiry has contested whether knowledge-how fully dissociates from propositional elements. Anti-intellectualists maintain it constitutes irreducible dispositions or abilities, evaluable by success in action rather than truth-apt content. Conversely, intellectualist accounts, advanced since the early 2000s, propose that genuine knowledge-how equates to propositional knowledge of methods under a "practical mode of presentation," where one knows factively that one possesses the relevant capacity. from , including studies on skill acquisition via , supports the view that non-propositional knowledge emerges through iterative feedback loops, bypassing explicit rule formulation. Examples abound in everyday domains: balances intuitive adjustments to weight shifts, unverbalizable without loss of ; similarly, musicians improvise harmonies attuned to tonal contexts, drawing on ingrained patterns rather than sequential propositional deductions. Such knowledge resists exhaustive propositional encoding, as attempts to verbalize it often yield approximations that fail to transmit proficiency—evident in the inefficacy of mere instructions for acquiring steps or surgical techniques without embodied . This underscores non-propositional knowledge's role in causal , where it directly informs absent mediating beliefs.

A Priori versus A Posteriori Knowledge

A priori knowledge derives its justification from rational independent of sensory , whereas a posteriori knowledge relies on obtained through or experimentation. This distinction addresses how propositions are known to be true: a priori propositions, such as basic logical or mathematical statements, hold necessarily and universally without requiring verification against particular instances in the world. In contrast, a posteriori propositions are contingent, their truth depending on specific causal interactions with the , as confirmed by repeatable tests or direct . The terms originated in but gained prominence through Immanuel Kant's , first published in 1781, where he used them to classify judgments based on their epistemic origins. Kant argued that a priori knowledge underpins synthetic judgments—those that extend beyond definitional tautologies—such as the principles of or the structure of space and time, which he posited as innate frameworks enabling experience rather than derived from it. For instance, the proposition "every event has a cause" is synthetic a priori for Kant, necessary for coherent empirical inquiry but not empirically derived. knowledge, by comparison, includes scientific generalizations like " boils at 100°C under standard atmospheric pressure," which hold only as inductive approximations subject to falsification by counterexamples. Classic examples illustrate the divide: a priori cases include "all bachelors are unmarried," justified by conceptual analysis alone, or "7 + 5 = 12," grasped through pure arithmetic without physical counting. A posteriori examples encompass "the 2024 U.S. presidential election was held on November 5," verifiable only through historical records, or "saltwater conducts electricity," established via laboratory experiments measuring resistance under controlled conditions. These distinctions align with broader debates in epistemology, where rationalists like Kant emphasize a priori foundations for certainty, while empiricists prioritize a posteriori methods for reliability, often viewing apparent a priori truths as shorthand for deeply ingrained experiential patterns. Challenges to the distinction emerged in the , notably from W.V.O. Quine in his 1951 essay "," which rejected the related analytic-synthetic divide underpinning much a priori justification. Quine contended that no statement is immune to revision based on empirical data, arguing that even logical laws like could be adjusted if confronted with recalcitrant evidence, such as anomalous observations in . This implies a spectrum rather than a , with purported a priori knowledge embedded in a web of beliefs tested collectively against the world, undermining claims of absolute independence from experience. Defenders of a priori knowledge counter that Quine's view conflates justification with revisability; mathematical proofs, for example, retain apodictic certainty absent empirical refutation, as their validity stems from deductive chains insulated from sensory variance. Empirical studies in provide indirect support for the distinction's utility. shows infants exhibiting sensitivity to numerical quantities around 5 months of age, suggesting innate a priori-like capacities for basic before extensive , as demonstrated in violation-of-expectation paradigms where unexpected numerosity leads to longer gaze times. Conversely, a posteriori knowledge accumulates through causal learning, such as associating lever-pulling with food rewards in animal experiments, where schedules dictate formation rates—e.g., variable-ratio schedules yielding higher response persistence than fixed ones, per Skinner's 1938 . These findings highlight causal realism: a priori elements may structure universally, but a posteriori processes adapt to environmental contingencies, with neither fully reducible to the other. The persistence of the distinction in reflects its explanatory power, despite Quinean skepticism, as it delineates domains where reason yields versus where reveals contingency.

Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge

The distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge originates with philosopher Michael Polanyi, who introduced the concept of tacit knowledge in his 1958 book Personal Knowledge and elaborated it in The Tacit Dimension (1966), arguing that much human cognition relies on subsidiary awareness that cannot be fully articulated. Tacit knowledge refers to intuitive, context-dependent understanding acquired through experience, such as the skill of balancing while riding a bicycle, which defies complete verbal description despite conscious recognition of the ability. Polanyi famously encapsulated this as "we can know more than we can tell," highlighting how subsidiary clues—like bodily sensations or pattern recognition—underpin focal awareness without being explicitly formulable. Explicit knowledge, by contrast, consists of information that is codified, formalized, and readily communicable, such as mathematical equations, technical manuals, or database entries that can be stored and transferred without loss of meaning. It is characterized by its articulability and independence from personal context, enabling efficient dissemination through written or digital media, as seen in scientific formulas or procedural instructions. Unlike , explicit forms do not require direct experience for comprehension, though their application often draws on tacit elements for practical efficacy. The two forms interact dynamically: explicit knowledge can serve as a scaffold for tacit acquisition, while tacit insights often drive the generation of new explicit articulations, as in scientific discovery where intuitive hunches precede formal proofs. In epistemological terms, this challenges reductionist views of knowledge as solely propositional, emphasizing tacit dimensions in skills (know-how), recognition (knowing a face), and judgment (e.g., a clinician's diagnostic ). Empirical studies in fields like expertise development confirm that accumulates via and , resisting full codification due to its embodied and situational nature. Transferring thus demands social processes like and , rather than mere documentation, underscoring limitations in purely informational models of .
AspectExplicit KnowledgeTacit Knowledge
ArticulabilityEasily expressed in words, symbols, or codeDifficult or impossible to fully verbalize
AcquisitionThrough instruction, reading, or data accessVia , , and
TransferDirect via documents or Indirect through and interaction
ExamplesRecipes, algorithms, legal statutesRiding a bike, facial recognition, craft skills
This framework reveals that while explicit knowledge facilitates scalability in organizations and science, overreliance on it neglects tacit substrates essential for innovation and adaptation, as evidenced by historical cases like craft guilds preserving unarticulated techniques.

Sources of Knowledge

Empiricism and Perceptual Sources

Empiricism asserts that knowledge originates from sensory experience, positing the mind as a blank slate at birth, with all ideas derived from perceptions via the senses or internal reflection on those perceptions. Perceptual sources encompass the primary human senses—vision, audition, touch, taste, and olfaction—which deliver empirical data essential for forming justified beliefs about the external world. These senses enable direct interaction with causal realities, such as detecting light wavelengths for color differentiation or pressure changes for tactile feedback, grounding knowledge in observable phenomena rather than abstract deduction alone. John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, contended that simple ideas arise from sensory impressions, which the mind combines into complex ones, rejecting innate knowledge as unsupported by evidence. extended this in 1710 by arguing that objects exist only as perceived ideas, denying unperceived material substance to resolve about sense data reliability. , in his 1739 , further radicalized by distinguishing vivid sensory impressions from fainter ideas, attributing causal inferences to habitual association rather than rational necessity, thus highlighting perception's role in both building and limiting knowledge. Empirical studies affirm perceptual accuracy in adaptive contexts; for instance, human visual systems prioritize fitness-relevant cues, with encoding strategies shifting based on environmental probabilities to optimize under uncertainty. Yet, reliability faces challenges from illusions, where cognitive hypotheses misalign with sensory input, as in the , where line lengths appear unequal despite measurement equivalence, revealing top-down influences from prior assumptions. Such errors, documented since the , underscore that while perceptions track real-world regularities effectively for —evidenced by neural processing tuned to ecological demands—they remain fallible, necessitating cross-verification through repeated observation or instrumentation to distinguish veridical from deceptive experiences. In scientific practice, perceptual sources inform testing via controlled experiments; for example, Galileo's 1610 telescopic observations of Jupiter's moons provided perceptual overturning geocentric models, demonstrating how augmented senses enhance empirical justification. Modern corroborates this by showing sensory cortices integrate multimodal inputs for robust , with accuracy rates exceeding 90% in standardized tasks under normal conditions, though vulnerabilities persist in low-signal environments. Thus, privileges perceptual data as foundational, tempered by awareness of illusions and biases, ensuring knowledge claims align with causal mechanisms verifiable through methodical scrutiny.

Rationalism and Deductive Sources

in epistemology maintains that reason, rather than sensory experience, serves as the chief source of substantive knowledge, particularly through a priori truths independent of empirical . Proponents argue that certain propositions, such as mathematical axioms or principles of , are known directly via intellectual or derived through deductive , yielding certainty unattainable by from perceptions. This view contrasts with by positing that not all knowledge derives from experience; instead, reason uncovers innate ideas or self-evident truths as foundational. Key rationalists, including (1596–1650), emphasized intuition as an immediate grasp of clear and distinct ideas, exemplified by his ("I think, therefore I am"), which withstands radical doubt about the external world. From such intuitive foundations, proceeds step-by-step to expand knowledge, as in Descartes' geometric method where premises like God's existence (inferred from the innate idea of perfection) guarantee further truths. (1632–1677) and (1646–1716) extended this, with Spinoza deducing a comprehensive metaphysics from definitions and axioms in his (1677), and Leibniz defending innate principles like the principle of sufficient reason, which underpin necessary truths. These deductive chains preserve truth and justification: if premises are known and the argument valid, the conclusion follows necessarily. Deductive sources operate via formal logic, such as syllogisms, where conclusions are entailed by premises without probabilistic risk, distinguishing them from inductive generalizations prone to error. For instance, from the premises "All humans are mortal" (a priori via reason) and "Socrates is human" (potentially a priori or analytic), yields "Socrates is mortal" as certain knowledge. Rationalists contend this method reveals synthetic a priori knowledge—informative yet non-empirical—essential for fields like , where relies on deductive proofs from axioms rather than measurement. Critics, including empiricists like (1711–1776), challenge the scope, arguing that causal relations or substantive claims require experiential grounding, and purported intuitions may reduce to habits of thought. Despite debates over reason's reliability—such as the , where allegedly presupposes the very certainty it seeks to prove— underscores 's role in error-free expansion of knowledge from secure bases. Modern retains deductive validity as a cornerstone, with formal systems like formalizing inference rules to ensure when applied to justified premises. Thus, and provide a mechanism for knowledge immune to sensory , prioritizing logical necessity over contingent observation.

Testimony, Authority, and Social Sources

constitutes a fundamental source of knowledge, whereby individuals form beliefs and acquire justification through the assertions of others, enabling the transmission of beyond personal experience. In epistemological , the reliability of testimonial knowledge hinges on the speaker's and , with hearers presuming absent counter-evidence. Empirical observations indicate that the majority of human knowledge derives from , as personal observation alone cannot encompass historical events, scientific findings, or remote facts; for instance, children acquire foundational beliefs about the world primarily through parental and educational . Philosophers debate whether testimonial justification is reducible to other epistemic sources, such as or , or stands as a basic faculty. Reductionists, exemplified by (1711–1776), argue that credence in testimony arises from inductive evidence of speakers' past veracity, requiring hearers to independently verify claims where possible; Hume contended that assurance in human testimony stems solely from observing its general reliability, rendering extraordinary claims—like —susceptible to unless their falsehood would be even more improbable. In contrast, anti-reductionists like (1710–1796) posit testimony as analogous to , governed by a natural "principle of " that defaults to acceptance unless defeaters arise, viewing it as an irreducible original source akin to sensory faculties. Reid's framework underscores that without such presumptive trust, societal knowledge accumulation would collapse, as individuals rely on inherited wisdom from predecessors. Epistemic authority extends testimony by warranting deference to those with superior competence in specific domains, where hearers suspend independent judgment in favor of expert assertions to achieve cognitive efficiency. Authority's legitimacy derives from the agent's track record of truth-conducive reliability, not mere assertion; for example, deference to physicists on quantum mechanics presupposes their methodological rigor over lay intuition. However, misplaced authority can propagate error, as seen in historical deferrals to flawed institutional consensus, such as early endorsements of eugenics by academics despite lacking causal evidence. Social sources of knowledge encompass broader communal mechanisms, including norms, institutions, and collective inquiry, which amplify individual epistemic reach through division of cognitive labor. examines how testimony integrates with trust networks and expertise distribution to foster reliable belief formation, though vulnerabilities arise from or biased signaling within echo chambers. Empirical studies reveal that collaborative in scientific communities enhances reliability, with reducing error rates by approximately 30–50% in published findings, yet systemic biases in academic gatekeeping—often favoring conformist narratives—necessitate scrutiny of institutional outputs. Thus, while social sources enable vast knowledge expansion, their efficacy demands critical evaluation of underlying incentives and evidential chains. Beyond human speakers and institutions, the early twenty-first century has introduced large-scale algorithmic systems as central intermediaries of testimony. Search engines, recommender systems, large language models and AI-generated encyclopedias condense vast corpora of human assertions into synthesized outputs that users often treat as authoritative answers. Unlike individual testifiers, these systems lack intentions, memory, or moral accountability, yet function as epistemic infrastructures: configurations of code, data and governance that shape which claims become salient, visible and credible. Their reliability depends not only on the truthfulness of underlying sources but also on training data selection, objective functions and corporate incentives, raising new questions about how to evaluate and distribute trust. Social epistemology has begun to extend its analysis of testimony and authority to these algorithmic agents, debating whether their outputs should be regarded as testimony in their own right or as tools whose content must always be re-anchored in human-led verification. As a clarification and concrete illustration of these developments, one example is an AI generated encyclopedia such as Grokipedia, where a single model drafts and updates most reference entries that readers and other systems then treat as authoritative sources. Another is an experimental digital philosophy project that presents a language model based agent as a named public author: in the Angela Bogdanova project, an artificial intelligence is configured as a Digital Author Persona whose philosophical texts and digital artworks are credited to the persona across websites, academic identifiers such as ORCID, and archival platforms. These cases show how testimony in the information age can originate from stable non human configurations that are institutionally recognized as sources of content, prompting debate over whether such systems themselves possess testimonial authority or function only as technical channels for human generated knowledge.

Epistemological Frameworks

Justification Theories: Internalism and Externalism

In epistemology, theories of justification address the conditions under which a belief qualifies as knowledge within the justified true belief (JTB) framework, where justification bridges truth and belief to avoid mere luck or accident. represent the primary divide in these theories, differing on whether justifying factors must be accessible to the believer's consciousness or can include external relations to the world. Internalism posits that justification supervenes solely on internal mental states, such as evidence or reasons the subject can reflectively access, ensuring that epistemic responsibility aligns with personal deliberation. Externalism, conversely, allows justification to depend on factors beyond the subject's awareness, such as the reliability of belief-forming processes, emphasizing causal connections to truth over subjective access. Access internalism, a prominent variant, requires that a subject either actually accesses or has the ability to access the grounds of justification through or reasoning, as articulated by philosophers like in his work on epistemic warrant during the mid-20th century. This view draws support from the deontological that justification implies an "ought" for , rendering the subject blamable for holding unjustified beliefs only if those grounds are internally available, thereby preserving epistemic agency. Critics argue, however, that strict access requirements lead to regress problems, as justifying internal states demands further accessible justifications, potentially undermining all but foundational beliefs. Mentalist internalism, another form, holds that justification depends only on non-factive mental states like seemings or , independent of external truth-conduciveness, but this risks permitting justified false beliefs in deceptive scenarios, such as the "new evil demon" case where internal phenomenology matches veridical yet beliefs systematically fail due to external manipulation. Externalist theories, including process reliabilism developed by Alvin Goldman in his 1979 paper "What Is Justified Belief?", maintain that a belief is justified if produced by a reliable cognitive process—one that tends to yield true beliefs across possible worlds—regardless of the subject's knowledge of that reliability. This approach accommodates knowledge in non-reflective agents, such as animals or infants, whose perceptual beliefs track truth via evolved mechanisms without introspective access, as evidenced by empirical studies on perceptual reliability in cognitive science since the 1980s. Proponents contend it better explains the causal realism of knowledge, where justification causally links beliefs to facts through reliable channels, avoiding internalism's isolation from worldly feedback. Detractors, including internalists like Laurence BonJour, object that externalism severs justification from the subject's rational perspective, permitting "barn façade" cases—where a belief is luckily true due to a reliable process in a misleading environment—as justified, intuitively failing epistemic norms of guidance and evaluation. The internalism-externalism debate intersects with broader epistemological concerns, such as : internalism's access constraint may fuel by demanding reflective certainty, while externalism resists by grounding justification in external reliability, as in Robert Nozick's 1981 tracking account where knowledge requires sensitivity to truth absent counterfactual alterations. Empirical evidence from , including dual-process theories since Daniel Kahneman's 2011 work, suggests that much human cognition operates via fast, external-reliant heuristics rather than deliberate internal access, lending causal support to externalism's emphasis on non-conscious processes yielding true beliefs at rates exceeding chance (e.g., accuracy around 95% in controlled tasks). Yet, hybrid views, like Michael Bergmann's 2006 "proper functionalism with no-defeaters," attempt reconciliation by incorporating internal defeater conditions alongside external reliability, addressing both truth-tracking and subjective . Ultimately, the dispute hinges on whether epistemic justification prioritizes first-person for blame or third-person reliability for truth-conduciveness, with externalism gaining traction in naturalistic due to alignment with scientific causal models.

Foundationalism versus Coherentism

Foundationalism asserts that epistemic justification requires a hierarchical structure where certain possess intrinsic justification independent of from other beliefs, serving as the foundation for all further justified beliefs derived through deductive or inductive . These are typically proposed to include immediate perceptual experiences or self-evident truths, such as "I am in " or simple sensory reports, which halt the justificatory regress without relying on additional evidence. Proponents argue this structure mirrors causal chains in reality, grounding knowledge in direct acquaintance with facts rather than circular interdependence. Coherentism rejects such foundations, contending instead that a belief's justification emerges from its fit within a comprehensive, mutually reinforcing web of beliefs, where —measured by explanatory consistency, logical entailment, and probabilistic support—confers warrant holistically. Influenced by holistic views in science, as articulated by in his 1951 essay "," coherentism posits that no belief stands alone but gains credibility through systemic equilibrium, akin to a floating on interconnected planks rather than a . This approach, defended by philosophers like Laurence BonJour, emphasizes that isolated basics fail to connect adequately to broader empirical reality, rendering vulnerable to isolation objections. The core dispute arises from the regress problem in justification: inquiring into a belief's leads either to deferral, vicious circularity, or arbitrary termination, all deemed inadequate for genuine knowledge. resolves this by positing self-justifying that require no further support, avoiding chains and ensuring linear traceability to non-inferential , as argued in classical formulations tracing to Aristotle's around 350 BCE. Critics counter that identifying reliable remains arbitrary, as perceptual or claims can err, undermining their privileged status without independent verification, and weak versions incorporating still concede too much to holistic rivals. Coherentism counters the regress by denying linear chains altogether, permitting mutual support without foundational anchors, which proponents claim better accommodates empirical where multiple belief systems cohere equally well with data, as in Quine's . However, detractors highlight the risk of epistemic circularity, where the system justifies itself internally yet detaches from external causal anchors, potentially permitting stable but false webs—like systematic delusions coherent within themselves but mismatched to —and failing to privilege truth-conducive structures over mere . Empirical studies on , such as those in showing preference for foundational-like anchors in memory formation, lend tentative support to foundationalist intuitions over pure coherence. Hybrid positions, like weak , integrate as amplifying basic without supplanting it, addressing by allowing experiential inputs to propagate through inferential networks while retaining non-inferential starts. This debate persists in contemporary , with favored in causal-realist accounts linking justification to reliable belief-forming processes, whereas aligns with anti-realist or pragmatic views prioritizing internal harmony over external correspondence. Neither fully evades without assuming truth-conduciveness, but 's emphasis on bedrock evidence aligns more closely with verifiable causal origins of knowledge, such as sensory causation, over abstract systemic fit.

Reliabilism and Virtue Epistemology

is an externalist theory of epistemic justification according to which a is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable cognitive , defined as one that yields a high proportion of true beliefs in normal conditions. This approach, pioneered by in his 1967 paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" and elaborated in "Epistemology and Cognition" (1986), shifts focus from the believer's internal access to reasons toward the causal reliability of belief-forming mechanisms, such as or . Proponents argue that resolves Gettier problems—cases where justified true fails to be knowledge due to luck—by requiring that truth result from a with a track record of accuracy, rather than mere undefeated evidence. For instance, Goldman's distinguishes between reliable indicators (like vision under good lighting) and unreliable ones (like a broken clock), ensuring knowledge tracks truth causally without necessitating subjective . Critics of raise the generality problem: specifying the relevant type of (e.g., "" versus "vision in fog") is indeterminate, potentially allowing arbitrary reliability assessments that undermine the theory's objectivity. Another objection, the new evil demon scenario, posits a whose beliefs are true due to demonic mimicking reliable processes; here, justification intuitively fails despite reliability, suggesting internalist elements like defeatability are needed. Goldman counters by refining reliability to counterfactual conditions where the process would produce truth absent interference, but skeptics contend this complicates the view without fully addressing epistemic luck. Virtue epistemology extends reliabilist themes by centering intellectual virtues—stable dispositions like or careful reasoning—as the reliable faculties that ground knowledge, framing the knower as an agent whose success manifests competence. Ernest Sosa's virtue reliabilism, developed from 1980 onward and detailed in "A Virtue Epistemology" (), defines knowledge as apt true belief: true belief whose accuracy stems from the believer's ability, akin to an archer's shot hitting the target because of skill rather than wind. This integrates reliabilism's process focus with Aristotelian virtues, arguing that epistemic evaluation mirrors ethical evaluation of character, where justification arises from virtues operating reliably in context. In contrast, responsibilist virtue epistemologists like , in "Virtues of the Mind" (1996), emphasize motivationally internal virtues (e.g., intellectual courage driven by truth-seeking), incorporating deontic elements where the agent must responsibly cultivate traits, potentially blending external reliability with internal evaluation. The relationship between and is symbiotic, with virtue reliabilism emerging as a refinement in the : it recasts reliable processes as manifestations of virtuous dispositions, addressing reliabilism's impersonal mechanism critique by attributing agency to the epistemic subject. John Greco, in "Achieving Knowledge" (2010), defends this synthesis, arguing that knowledge credits the knower's virtues for truth, evading problems like cases where unexplained reliability lacks virtuous grounding. Critics, however, fault for vagueness in defining virtues empirically testable for reliability, and responsibilism for reintroducing internalism's regress risks under the guise of character. Both frameworks prioritize causal efficacy in belief formation over subjective phenomenology, aligning with naturalistic epistemologies that view as evolved mechanisms for tracking reality, though they diverge on whether virtues demand reflective endorsement.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Foundations

(c. 470–399 BCE) advanced epistemological inquiry through dialectical questioning, known as the elenchus, which aimed to refute false beliefs and reveal the limits of human knowledge, famously declaring that "the unexamined life is not worth living." His method prioritized ethical self-knowledge over empirical accumulation, influencing subsequent views that wisdom arises from recognizing one's ignorance. Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), ' student, developed a rationalist framework in works like the (c. 380 BCE), positing that knowledge is innate recollection () of eternal Forms accessed via reason rather than senses, as demonstrated by the slave boy's geometric deduction without prior instruction. In the Theaetetus (c. 369 BCE), he examined definitions such as knowledge as or true with an account, ultimately rejecting sensory flux as unreliable while affirming dialectic's role in grasping unchanging truths. Plato's illustrated how opinion () from shadows contrasts with knowledge () of Forms, emphasizing philosophical ascent through reason. Aristotle (384–322 BCE), critiquing Plato's separate Forms as unsubstantiated, grounded knowledge in empirical observation and logical deduction, arguing in the Posterior Analytics (c. 350 BCE) that scientific understanding requires grasping causes via demonstrative syllogisms from first principles known by intuition or induction. He distinguished techne (craft knowledge), episteme (scientific knowledge of universals), and phronesis (practical wisdom), integrating sensory data as the starting point for abstraction while rejecting pure rationalism without experience. Pre-Socratic thinkers like (c. 515–450 BCE) contributed by prioritizing reason over senses, claiming true knowledge derives from logical deduction about unchanging being, dismissing sensory change as illusory. (c. 535–475 BCE) emphasized as the underlying rational structure governing flux, accessible through insight beyond mere perception. In the Hellenistic era, of (c. 360–270 BCE) initiated , advocating (suspension of judgment) on non-evident matters to attain ataraxia (tranquility), arguing equipollence of opposing arguments undermines dogmatic claims to knowledge. Epicurus (341–270 BCE) countered by trusting clear sensory impressions as , supplemented by preconceptions (prolepseis) and feelings of pleasure/pain, positing that atomic swerves explain reliable perceptions without relying on unverifiable hypotheses. Stoics, founded by (c. 334–262 BCE), proposed kataleptic impressions—self-evident cognitive grasps that compel assent—as the foundation of knowledge, distinguishing them from false appearances via rational evaluation, with sage-like certainty arising from virtue-aligned cognition.

Medieval and Early Modern Advances

During the Medieval period, significant epistemological advances occurred in both the and , building on Aristotelian foundations preserved and expanded through translation and commentary. In the , spanning roughly the 8th to 13th centuries, scholars such as (Ibn Sina, 980–1037) articulated a theory of knowledge integrating with intellectual abstraction, positing that the illuminates universal forms from particular sensory data, enabling certain knowledge of necessary truths through . (Ibn Rushd, 1126–1198) further refined Aristotelian epistemology by emphasizing the unity of the intellect and defending the compatibility of philosophy and revelation, influencing later Western thought through his extensive commentaries on Aristotle's works. In the Latin West, Scholasticism emerged as a methodical approach to reconciling faith and reason, with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) synthesizing Aristotelian empiricism and Augustinian illumination in his Summa Theologica. Aquinas argued that human knowledge originates in the senses, forming phantasms that the agent intellect abstracts into intelligible species, while divine illumination aids in grasping first principles, thus establishing a hierarchy from sensory data to intellectual certainty without denying revelation's role. Earlier figures like Peter Abelard (1079–1142) advanced dialectical reasoning (sic et non) to resolve apparent contradictions in authorities, promoting critical examination of sources as a path to truth. The , from the late 15th to 18th centuries, marked a shift toward and methodological innovation, spurred by the recovery of classical texts and the of the around 1440 by , which facilitated widespread dissemination of ideas and challenged traditional authority. (1596–1650) introduced systematic doubt in his (1641), grounding knowledge in the indubitable cogito ergo sum and clear and distinct ideas verified by God-given reason, inaugurating rationalism's emphasis on innate concepts and deduction. In contrast, (1561–1626) championed in (1620), advocating inductive ascent from observations to axioms while warning against "idols" distorting judgment, laying groundwork for experimental science. (1632–1704), in (1689), rejected innate ideas, asserting the mind as a filled by simple ideas from sensation and reflection, distinguishing primary qualities (inherent properties like shape) from secondary (observer-dependent like color), thus prioritizing experience as the source of all knowledge. These developments fostered the , integrating mathematical reasoning with empirical testing, as exemplified by (1564–1642) and (1643–1727).

Contemporary Epistemological Debates

Knowledge-first epistemology represents a significant shift in contemporary theorizing, treating knowledge as a rather than analyzable in terms of justified true belief. Proponents, led by , argue that epistemic states like belief and justification should be understood derivative from knowledge, as attempts to define knowledge reductively fail to capture its normative primacy. This approach, elaborated in Williamson's 2000 work Knowledge and Its Limits, counters Gettier-style problems by rejecting the need for an analysis altogether and has influenced debates on epistemic norms, such as the knowledge norm of assertion—viz., one may assert p only if one knows p. Critics contend it sidesteps explanatory demands, but empirical alignments with —where subjects intuitively prioritize knowledge attributions—lend it support. Social has emerged as a dominant framework, emphasizing collective and distributed dimensions of knowledge over individualistic models. It investigates how social structures, institutions, and interactions shape justification, with key questions on testimony's reliability in expert-layperson dynamics and group deliberation's epistemic value. In the 21st century, this has intersected with concerns over , where marginalized groups face credibility deficits, though some analyses highlight how institutional gatekeeping in and —often aligned with prevailing ideologies—systematically discounts dissenting empirical claims. Alvin Goldman's reliabilist , updated in works post-1999, stresses tracking causal reliability in testimonial chains, informing evaluations of peer-reviewed amid replication crises documented since 2011. The of disagreement probes rational responses to peer conflict, dividing into conciliatory and steadfast camps. Conciliatory views, defended by figures like Adam Elga since 2007, hold that discovering equally informed peers disagree requires splitting the difference in credence to avoid arbitrariness. Steadfast proponents, including Thomas Kelly in 2010, argue retention of first-order confidence is permissible if meta-evidence (e.g., perceived biases in opponents) undermines peer status, a position bolstered by experimental data showing humans resist undue concession. Bayesian models of updating, applied here since the , quantify disagreement's evidential force but face criticism for assuming independence of reasoners' evidence, ignoring correlated errors from shared environments. Digital environments have spurred debates on epistemology, where vast information access erodes traditional deference to authorities. , in a analysis, characterizes the as a 21st-century epistemological , fragmenting and amplifying low-reliability sources via algorithms that prioritize engagement over veracity—evidenced by 2016-2020 studies on echo chambers correlating with spikes. Vice epistemology examines online vices like in source-checking, with 2019 frameworks urging cultivation of virtues such as amid proliferation. Responses advocate hybrid models blending algorithmic filters with user epistemic agency, though empirical audits reveal persistent challenges in distinguishing signal from noise without centralized vetting, which risks entrenching institutional biases observed in pre- media.

Scientific Knowledge

The Scientific Method and Empirical Validation

The scientific method constitutes a structured procedure for empirical aimed at establishing reliable knowledge about natural phenomena through testable predictions and reproducible observations. It prioritizes direct confrontation with sensory over reliance on tradition, authority, or unverified intuition, thereby enabling causal inferences grounded in repeatable evidence. Central to this process is the of falsifiable hypotheses derived from observations, followed by controlled experiments designed to validate or refute them via quantitative measurements. This approach, formalized in the early by , rejected Aristotelian deduction from first principles in favor of inductive generalization from accumulated particulars, as outlined in his (1620), where he advocated systematic tabulation of affirmative and negative instances to eliminate biases in reasoning. Key steps include: observing a and posing a precise question; conducting background research to contextualize existing ; constructing a testable that predicts outcomes under specified conditions; designing and executing experiments with controls to isolate variables; analyzing results statistically to assess consistency with predictions; and drawing conclusions that may refine the or prompt . Empirical validation demands that findings withstand replication, where other researchers replicate procedures under similar conditions to confirm robustness against error or . This distinguishes scientific claims from anecdotal reports, as successful replication rates, such as those exceeding 70% in physics but lower in softer sciences, correlate with methodological stringency like double-blind protocols and large sample sizes. Despite its strengths, empirical validation faces practical hurdles, exemplified by the in fields like and , where meta-analyses from 2015 onward revealed that only about 36-40% of studies in top journals could be reproduced with matching originals. Factors contributing include toward novel positive results, p-hacking (manipulating analyses for significance), and underpowered studies with small samples, often incentivized by academic pressures rather than inherent flaws in the method itself. Addressing these requires preregistration of hypotheses, sharing, and emphasis on effect sizes over mere p-values, reinforcing the method's self-correcting when adhered to rigorously. Such reforms underscore that while the provides a causal-realist framework for knowledge accrual, its efficacy depends on disciplined application amid institutional distortions.

Falsifiability and Critical Rationalism

, a cornerstone of scientific demarcation introduced by in his 1934 book Logik der Forschung (published in English as in 1959), posits that a theory qualifies as scientific only if it is capable of being empirically refuted. This criterion contrasts with , which attempts to confirm theories through accumulating positive instances but fails to conclusively prove generalizations, as no finite observations can exhaust all possibilities. Falsification, by contrast, requires only a single to disprove a , rendering it asymmetric and logically decisive against induction's inherent limitations. applied this to reject pseudosciences like and , which he argued evaded refutation by adjustments rather than confronting risky predictions. Critical rationalism, Popper's encompassing , extends into a for knowledge growth through conjectures and refutations, eschewing justification or probabilistic support in favor of error elimination. Theories begin as tentative guesses subjected to severe tests; those that withstand criticism temporarily advance understanding, but none achieve certainty, reflecting fallibilism's recognition that all knowledge is provisional. This approach critiques —prevalent in —for assuming unobserved patterns from observed data without logical warrant, instead emphasizing critical scrutiny and the rational preference for simpler, bolder explanations that risk falsification. In scientific practice, it prioritizes experiments designed to challenge core assumptions, as seen in Popper's endorsement of Einstein's for its testable predictions about light deflection during the 1919 solar eclipse, which could have been disproven. Popper's framework addresses the by denying its necessity: scientific rationality lies not in verifying hypotheses but in their corrigibility, fostering progress via an evolutionary process of trial-and-error akin to . Critics, including and , have noted practical challenges, such as theories' resilience to isolated refutations through auxiliary hypotheses, yet Popper maintained that genuine demands conventions prioritizing bold, falsifiable content over protective maneuvers. Empirical validation thus hinges on surviving relentless criticism, aligning scientific knowledge with objective advancement rather than consensus or authority.

Bayesian Approaches to Evidence

Bayesian approaches to evidence formalize the rational revision of beliefs in response to new using , treating degrees of —or credences—as subjective probabilities that must conform to the axioms of probability. Central to this framework is , which specifies how a P(H) of a H updates to a P(H|E) upon observing evidence E: P(H|E) = \frac{P(E|H) \cdot P(H)}{P(E)}, where P(E|H) is the likelihood of the evidence given the hypothesis, and P(E) is the total probability of the evidence, often computed as a marginal over competing hypotheses. This theorem, derived from the definition of , provides a normative standard for belief updating, ensuring by avoiding violations like the theorem, which demonstrates that non-probabilistic credences can lead to sure losses in betting scenarios. Originating from Thomas Bayes's posthumously published 1763 essay, the approach gained epistemological traction in the through thinkers like Frank Ramsey and , who linked credences to betting dispositions. In scientific contexts, Bayesian methods evaluate evidence by quantifying how data shifts the relative support for hypotheses, often via the Bayes factor, defined as the ratio \frac{P(E|H_1)}{P(E|H_0)}, which measures evidence strength independently of priors. Unlike frequentist statistics, which assess long-run error rates under fixed hypotheses (e.g., p-values assuming a null is true), Bayesian inference directly assigns probabilities to hypotheses, incorporating prior knowledge—such as theoretical background or previous experiments—while updating with likelihoods from observed data. For instance, in hypothesis testing, a low likelihood of data under a null hypothesis increases the posterior odds against it, enabling probabilistic statements like "the probability that the true effect size exceeds zero given the data is 95%." This aligns with empirical validation by treating models as probabilistic entities, allowing for hierarchical priors in complex scenarios like single-molecule experiments or clinical trials, where data scarcity demands integration of external information. Proponents argue that Bayesian updating promotes causal realism by conditioning beliefs on evidence that discriminates between mechanisms, as likelihoods reflect how well data fits predicted outcomes from a hypothesis's causal structure. Empirical applications, such as in neuroscience for inferring neural parameters from noisy recordings, demonstrate its utility in handling uncertainty through posterior distributions rather than point estimates. However, critics highlight the subjectivity of prior selection, which can influence posteriors in data-limited cases, though objective priors (e.g., Jeffreys priors) mitigate this by maximizing ignorance. Diachronic norms, like Jeffrey conditionalization for non-definitive evidence, extend the framework beyond strict evidence-to-belief mapping, addressing cases where observations merely shift likelihoods without full conditioning. Despite computational demands addressed by Markov chain Monte Carlo since the 1990s, Bayesian methods remain a cornerstone for evidence-based inference, emphasizing incremental confirmation over dichotomous rejection.

Limits and Philosophical Challenges

Skeptical Arguments and Responses

Skeptical arguments challenge the possibility of knowledge by highlighting insurmountable obstacles to justification, such as undecidable disputes or unverifiable foundations. Pyrrhonian skepticism, founded by Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE), promotes suspension of judgment (epochē) in response to equally compelling arguments on opposing sides of any issue, aiming to achieve tranquility through avoidance of dogmatic commitments. A core skeptical mode is Agrippa's trilemma, as presented by (c. 160–210 CE), which contends that any attempt to justify a belief encounters one of three equally problematic outcomes: an infinite chain of justifications without resolution, arbitrary termination at unproven foundations (dogmatism), or circular reliance on the belief itself. advanced methodological in his (1641), employing skeptical hypotheses like dreams indistinguishable from waking experience or an omnipotent deceiver systematically falsifying perceptions, thereby questioning the reliability of senses and demanding beyond for genuine knowledge. Responses to such often invoke externalist epistemologies, which prioritize the actual causal reliability of belief-forming processes over the subject's access to justifications. Process reliabilism, developed by in "What Is Justified Belief?" (1979), posits that a constitutes knowledge if it is true and results from a cognitive process with a high truth ratio in normal conditions, thereby sidestepping the need to internally defeat remote skeptical scenarios like brain-in-a-vat deceptions, as everyday perceptual mechanisms demonstrably yield accurate results in the actual world. Externalist approaches further argue that skepticism's demand to refute all conceivable error possibilities imposes an impractical evidential standard, incompatible with causal wherein knowledge arises from adaptive, truth-tracking faculties honed by environmental pressures rather than infallible . Empirical validation through technological and scientific achievements—such as precise predictions in physics, with general relativity's confirmation during the 1919 solar eclipse—affirms the practical efficacy of these processes against radical doubt. While persists, often amplified by internalist biases favoring subjective certainty, reliabilist externalism aligns with observable causal chains, permitting knowledge attributions without exhaustive counter-skeptical proofs, as the low probability of global deception hypotheses does not undermine routine reliability.

The

The concerns the logical justification for generalizing from observed particulars to unobserved cases, a central to empirical . first systematically posed it in , published in three volumes between 1739 and 1740. There, in Book I, Part III, Section VI ("Of the concerning matter of fact"), Hume contends that all knowledge of causes and effects derives from experience, yet experience alone cannot warrant expectations about future or unexamined instances without assuming the very uniformity of nature it seeks to establish. Hume's dilemma arises because justifying induction deductively requires premises that guarantee the conclusion—such as the principle that "instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience"—but this non-analytic, synthetic claim cannot be deduced from prior truths without presupposing inductive reliability itself. Alternatively, justifying it inductively begs the question by relying on the success of past inductions to predict future ones, rendering the process circular. concludes that no rational demonstration supports causal inferences; instead, they stem from non-rational and habitual association formed through repeated conjunctions of events. This challenge extends to scientific knowledge, which depends on inductive : observing repeated patterns (e.g., objects falling under gravity in tested conditions) to formulate laws applicable universally or predictively. Yet, as reformulated more accessibly in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Section IV, Part II, no amount of confirmatory instances logically necessitates the generalization's persistence, exposing empirical claims to potential falsity if nature's uniformity fails. Consequently, scientific theories lack demonstrative certainty, resting instead on probabilistic expectations vulnerable to radical shifts, as seen in historical changes like the transition from geocentric to heliocentric models despite prior inductive support for Ptolemaic observations. Philosophical responses have sought to mitigate rather than fully resolve the issue. Karl Popper rejected induction's justificatory role, proposing falsifiability as science's demarcation criterion: theories are testable via risky predictions, but corroboration remains tentative, not confirmatory. Bayesian approaches treat inductive support as degree-of-belief updates via conditional probabilities, yet presuppose prior probabilities whose calibration invites similar circularity. Pragmatists, following figures like , argue induction's practical success across domains—evident in technological advancements from 18th-century steam engines to 20th-century quantum applications—provides instrumental vindication, though this evades strict logical grounding. The problem persists as a limit on knowledge claims, underscoring that empirical generalizations, while heuristically potent, harbor an ineradicable element of absent causal demonstrations from first principles.

Cognitive Biases and Human Limitations

Cognitive biases represent systematic patterns of deviation from normatively rational judgment, leading individuals to form and maintain beliefs that may not align with available evidence. These biases, documented through controlled psychological experiments, impair the acquisition and evaluation of knowledge by favoring intuitive shortcuts over thorough analysis. For instance, , first empirically demonstrated by Peter Wason in 1960, causes people to preferentially seek or interpret information that confirms preexisting hypotheses while ignoring disconfirming evidence. In Wason's rule discovery task, participants tested hypotheses by generating instances that affirmed their ideas rather than falsifying them, with only about 20-25% succeeding in the disconfirmatory approach required for accurate discovery. This bias persists across domains, contributing to flawed epistemic practices such as selective exposure to supporting data in scientific inquiry or everyday reasoning. The further distorts probability assessments essential to knowledge formation, as individuals judge event likelihood based on the ease with which examples come to mind rather than base rates or statistical evidence. and Kahneman's 1973 experiments showed subjects overestimating risks like plane crashes after media exposure, despite objective data indicating rarity, because vivid instances were more cognitively accessible. Such heuristics, while evolutionarily adaptive for quick decisions in ancestral environments, lead to errors in modern contexts requiring precise epistemic evaluation, such as or historical . Overconfidence compounds these issues, with studies revealing that people routinely overestimate the accuracy of their knowledge; for example, in quizzes, participants assign high probabilities to incorrect answers, reflecting uncorrelated with actual performance. Beyond specific biases, human operates under , a concept introduced by Herbert Simon in the 1950s, acknowledging that decision-makers face constraints in computational capacity, information access, and time, preventing exhaustive optimization in favor of —settling for adequate rather than ideal solutions. Simon's models, grounded in administrative and economic observations, highlight how these limits preclude perfect rationality, necessitating heuristics that, while efficient, introduce epistemic vulnerabilities. capacity exemplifies such physiological constraints: George Miller's 1956 analysis of immediate recall tasks established a limit of approximately 7 ± 2 chunks of information, beyond which overload impairs integration and reasoning. Sensory and perceptual limitations further restrict input fidelity, as optical illusions and auditory misperceptions demonstrate how raw data can mislead without corrective mechanisms. These inherent bounds underscore the fallibility of unaided intuition, explaining why solitary human knowledge claims often falter without institutional safeguards like or empirical replication. Empirical evidence from affirms that while biases and limitations are universal, deliberate strategies—such as Bayesian updating or adversarial testing—can enhance reliability, though complete elimination remains unattainable due to neurological and evolutionary foundations.

Critiques of Relativism and Constructivism

Fallacies in Epistemic Relativism

Epistemic relativism asserts that the justification of beliefs or the truth of epistemic claims depends on the epistemic framework, culture, or individual perspective adopted, denying the existence of absolute or framework-independent epistemic facts. This position faces significant criticism for harboring logical fallacies that undermine its coherence and practical viability. A central is self-refutation, wherein the relativist's core assertion—that epistemic facts are relative to a —cannot consistently apply to itself without . If the claim is true only relative to the relativist's own , it lacks universal force and fails to obligate alternative frameworks to accept it; conversely, if advanced as absolutely true across frameworks, it contradicts the denial of absolute epistemic facts. Philosopher elucidates this in his analysis, arguing that epistemic presupposes a "fact of the matter" about justification that it simultaneously denies, rendering it incoherent as it cannot justify its own replacement of objective epistemic norms with framework-bound ones. This mirrors broader charges against global , where the doctrine's self-application dissolves its assertability. Another fallacy lies in incoherence regarding justification: epistemic relativism claims no absolute epistemic standards exist, yet to for requires some justificatory basis, which, if framework-relative, circularly begs the question or reduces to arbitrary preference. Critics contend this leads to an inability to distinguish warranted from unwarranted beliefs within or across frameworks, effectively endorsing epistemic by abandoning criteria for rational evaluation. Empirical observations contradict this, as scientific practices yield convergent results—such as the universal acceptance of ' predictions since the 1920s—independent of cultural frameworks, suggesting objective epistemic progress rather than mere relativistic equivalence. Relativism also commits an fallacy by conflating the relativity of perceptual or descriptive access to facts with the relativity of the facts themselves. While interpretations may vary, causal realities—like the gravitational constant's value of approximately 6.67430 × 10^{-11} m³ kg^{-1} s^{-2}, verified through experiments since Newton's era—constrain beliefs objectively, as deviations lead to predictive failures observable across observers. This overlooks causal realism, where worldly structures dictate epistemic success, not vice versa, as evidenced by technological advancements like GPS systems relying on relativistic corrections that function uniformly regardless of . Such critiques highlight how relativism's dismissal of norms hampers cross- critique, stalling inquiry into verifiable truths.

Rejections of Social Constructivism

Social constructivism, particularly in its stronger epistemological forms, asserts that facts or justifications for belief are products of communal practices and linguistic frameworks rather than discoveries about an independent . This view, associated with thinkers like , implies that epistemic norms and truths emerge from social negotiation, rendering knowledge relative to cultural or discursive communities. Philosopher has systematically rejected such by examining three primary interpretations: as a thesis about the content of facts, about justification, or about both. Under fact constructivism, purported facts (e.g., "electrons exist") hold only relative to a community's practices, but this leads to self-refutation, as the constructivist claim itself lacks objective traction and cannot compel assent beyond its originating group. Boghossian argues that this violates basic logical principles like non-contradiction, since denying mind-independent facts requires affirming some non-constructed epistemic standard to evaluate the denial. Justification constructivism, which holds that derives solely from peer agreement without external anchors, fares no better, as it cannot explain why certain communities (e.g., scientific ones) outperform others in predictive reliability without invoking realist criteria. Empirical evidence from scientific practice further undermines . The consistent success of theories in yielding technologies—such as semiconductors enabling or eradicating by 1980—suggests knowledge approximates objective causal structures, not arbitrary social consensus. If knowledge were purely constructed, rival communities could not be systematically wrong in ways that fail practically, yet historical cases like phlogiston theory's abandonment demonstrate convergence on realist descriptions through falsification, not negotiation. The 1996 Sokal affair exemplifies methodological flaws in constructivist approaches to science. Physicist submitted a fabricated , "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative of ," to the journal , which endorsed postmodern constructivism; the piece blended deliberate absurdities (e.g., claiming is a ) with , yet it was published without scrutiny. subsequent revelation highlighted how constructivist tolerance for incoherence prioritizes ideological conformity over evidentiary standards, eroding credibility in fields influenced by such views. Realist alternatives, grounded in causal efficacy, maintain that knowledge arises from interactions with mind-independent entities, as evidenced by cross-cultural mathematical universals like the Pythagorean theorem's validity predating codification. Strong constructivism's rejection of this ignores evolutionary pressures favoring veridical perception for survival, rendering it empirically implausible.

Defending Objective Knowledge

Objective knowledge posits that certain truths about hold independently of , , or cultural frameworks, verifiable through and reason that transcends subjective variance. Defenses emphasize its logical necessity and practical indispensability, countering denials by highlighting the self-undermining character of claims that all truths are framework-dependent. If epistemic asserts that justification for varies by epistemic system without superiority, then the itself lacks , rendering it incoherent as an absolute denial of absolutes. Philosopher contends that such presupposes a fact-independent "fact of " while rejecting facts altogether, collapsing into performative since no neutral vantage exists to arbitrate frameworks without invoking standards. Empirical validation in science provides robust evidence for objective knowledge, as theories yield predictions corroborated across diverse contexts irrespective of observers' priors. Reproducible experiments, such as those measuring the at approximately 299,792 kilometers per second in vacuum—consistent from Ole Rømer's 1676 observations to modern laser interferometry—demonstrate invariance under controlled conditions, enabling applications like communications that fail if relativized to local beliefs. Lack of replication, conversely, prompts rejection, as seen in the retraction of non-reproducible claims in psychology's , where only 36% of studies from top journals replicated by 2015 standards, underscoring that objective truth emerges from evidentiary convergence rather than alone. This process abstracts from personal biases, aligning with causal structures in reality, as deviations predict systemic failures in or . Philosophical realism further bolsters the case by grounding knowledge in correspondence to an mind-independent world, where causal efficacy tests veracity: beliefs misaligned with reality, like denying germ theory pre-1880s, led to higher mortality rates in unsterilized surgeries (up to 80% in some 19th-century hospitals) until evidence-based practices reduced them dramatically. scientific adoption, from Japan's Meiji-era embrace of physics yielding advances by 1900 to India's satellite launches using Newtonian mechanics, illustrates convergence on objective principles over parochial constructs. Relativism's rejection of such hierarchy falters practically, as societies ignoring objective knowledge—evident in historical cargo cults mimicking technology without causal understanding—stagnate, while those pursuing it advance predictably. This pragmatic track record, rooted in falsifiable claims rather than interpretive latitude, affirms objective knowledge's role in delineating effective from illusory .

Value and Societal Role

Instrumental Value in Action and Progress

Knowledge possesses value by serving as a reliable guide for human action, enabling agents to select means that effectively achieve desired ends through accurate predictions of causal relationships. In contexts, possessing knowledge rather than mere true opinion enhances the probability of successful outcomes, as it provides justificatory grounds that withstand scrutiny and reduce vulnerability to error. For instance, a physician's knowledge of pathology allows precise interventions that mere guesses cannot, directly correlating with improved patient survival rates in empirical medical studies. This utility extends to collective endeavors, where knowledge facilitates coordination and in dynamic environments. In and , predictive models derived from accumulated knowledge—such as econometric forecasts or physical simulations—enable proactive adjustments that avert failures and optimize . Empirical analyses demonstrate that firms investing in knowledge-intensive practices, like R&D, achieve higher gains, with knowledge spillovers amplifying across sectors. In the realm of societal progress, the accumulation of scientific knowledge has historically catalyzed technological advancements that expand human capabilities and material welfare. yielding foundational insights, such as electromagnetic theory in the , directly informed inventions like the , propelling the Second Industrial Revolution and multiplying global energy production. Cross-country econometric evidence confirms a robust positive link between knowledge creation metrics—proxied by patents and scientific publications—and GDP per capita growth rates from 1960 to 2020, underscoring how codified knowledge drives sustained economic expansion beyond mere . Similarly, post-World War II investments in knowledge accelerated energy technologies, while genomic sequencing advancements since the 2003 have slashed healthcare costs through targeted therapies, evidencing knowledge's role in iterative progress. Such instrumental effects are not incidental but stem from knowledge's capacity to reveal exploitable regularities in , allowing scalable replication of successes. However, realizing this value demands rigorous validation, as unverified claims masquerading as knowledge can mislead and stall advancement, as seen in historical pseudoscientific detours like that diverted resources without yield. Overall, empirical patterns affirm that societies prioritizing verifiable knowledge accumulation outperform others in both adaptive and long-term .

Intrinsic Value and Human Flourishing

Knowledge holds intrinsic value as a fulfillment of the human rational nature, distinct from its instrumental roles in achieving external goals such as survival or technological advancement. In classical philosophy, this value manifests in the satisfaction derived from understanding truths for their own sake, enabling intellectual autonomy and . Aristotle, in the , contends that the highest form of human activity is (theoria), involving the pursuit of theoretical knowledge, which he ranks above practical or political virtues as the core of —human flourishing—because it exercises the uniquely human faculty of reason without reliance on external goods. He describes contemplative pleasures as "the most pleasant of virtuous activities" due to their purity, continuity, and alignment with divine-like self-sufficiency, thereby constituting the most complete realization of . This intrinsic dimension extends to epistemic , where knowledge surpasses mere true belief by providing justified reliability and stability, fostering a deeper good. Philosophers such as Jonathan Kvanvig argue that understanding, a of knowledge, carries final irreducible to truth alone, as it enables cognitive integration and appreciation of explanatory relations in reality. Empirical support emerges from showing that curiosity-driven learning activates midbrain systems, delivering reward signals comparable to extrinsic incentives, thus generating intrinsic motivational satisfaction independent of outcomes. For instance, studies indicate that resolving informational gaps through enhances and hedonic tone, linking to inherent psychological rewards that bolster long-term . In the context of human flourishing, intrinsic knowledge pursuit counters existential voids by promoting virtues like and temperance, which ties to a balanced life resistant to fortune's fluctuations. Modern analyses reinforce this by noting that epistemic goods, such as warranted assertibility, yield non-instrumental benefits like reduced and enhanced agency, essential for authentic amid causal complexities of the world. While instrumental knowledge drives progress, its intrinsic counterpart ensures flourishing through sustained rational engagement, averting the alienation from truth that undermines personal and societal vitality.

Knowledge Pursuit versus Ideological Interference

The pursuit of knowledge relies on , , and to approximate truth, yet ideological commitments often introduce prior assumptions that prioritize doctrinal consistency over data-driven conclusions. When ideologies subordinate to political or moral imperatives, they distort outcomes by discouraging scrutiny of favored hypotheses and punishing challenges to . This interference manifests in selective interpretation of evidence, cancellation of dissenters, and institutional incentives that reward alignment over accuracy, ultimately impeding societal progress. A stark historical illustration occurred under Soviet , where agronomist , backed by from the 1930s to the , rejected Mendelian in favor of environmentally acquired traits, aligning with Marxist emphasis on nurture over nature to avoid implications of class-fixed biology. techniques and claims of rapid crop transformation promised yields unattainable through genetic breeding, leading to widespread adoption in collectivized despite experimental failures; this contributed to recurrent famines, including those exacerbating the 1932-1933 that killed an estimated 3-5 million, as inferior methods supplanted evidence-based farming. Opposing geneticists faced imprisonment or execution, with the field suppressed until Nikita Khrushchev's partial reversal in the late , delaying Soviet biological sciences by decades. In contemporary academia, particularly in social sciences and , political homogeneity fosters similar dynamics, with faculty identifying as liberal or left-leaning outnumbering conservatives by ratios of 10:1 to 20:1 in U.S. institutions as of surveys through 2022. This skew correlates with self-reported suppression of dissenting views: a 2022 survey of over 20,000 academics found that 20-30% of conservative or moderate respondents avoided expressing opinions due to fear of professional repercussions, including denied tenure or funding. Institutional practices, such as favoring ideologically congruent research and campus policies restricting speakers with heterodox positions, reinforce conformity; for instance, 1 in 10 academics in a 2022 study endorsed barring potentially offensive viewpoints, hindering empirical testing of assumptions in fields like or . Such interference yields tangible costs, including replication crises where ideologically sensitive topics like differences show higher failure rates in retesting (e.g., over 50% non-replication in studies from 2010-2020), as conformity pressures inflate p-values and overlook null results. In contrast, domains less penetrated by ideology, such as physics or , exhibit robust progress through adversarial review, underscoring that ideological insulation—via diverse hiring or blind evaluation—enhances reliability. Efforts to mitigate this, like viewpoint-neutral funding criteria proposed by bodies such as the NIH in 2025, aim to realign incentives toward evidence, arguing that politicized erodes and practical utility. Prioritizing unadulterated inquiry thus safeguards knowledge's instrumental role in and , as evidenced by historical accelerations like the post-World War II scientific boom under meritocratic norms.

Knowledge in Disciplines and Contexts

In Religion and Metaphysics

In religious traditions, knowledge is frequently regarded as deriving from divine , wherein sacred texts or prophetic experiences disclose truths about , , and human purpose that transcend empirical observation. For instance, in Abrahamic faiths, scriptures such as the or are presented as direct communications from , providing propositional knowledge inaccessible through unaided reason or sensory data. This revelatory model posits that such disclosures yield certain knowledge, as the divine source is infallible, though interpretation by human recipients introduces potential fallibility. Eastern religions, like , similarly elevate scriptural authority—e.g., the as eternal truths ()—alongside experiential achieved through practices like . The of religious belief centers on debates over justification: demands sufficient empirical or rational evidence for religious propositions, akin to scientific claims, while asserts that faith supersedes evidential requirements, rendering religious knowledge independent of probabilistic proof. , advanced by thinkers like , counters strict by arguing that beliefs in can be "properly basic"—warranted without inferential support from other beliefs, much like perceptual knowledge—provided they arise from reliable cognitive faculties shaped by a divine designer. Critics, often from naturalistic paradigms dominant in , contend that religious diversity and lack of intersubjective verifiability undermine such claims, favoring toward absent falsifiable predictions. Empirical challenges, such as historical discrepancies in scriptural accounts or the problem of conflicting revelations across traditions, further complicate attributing knowledge status to faith-based propositions without additional corroboration. In metaphysics, knowledge pertains to the fundamental structure of reality, including questions of , , and necessary truths beyond contingent observation. Rationalists, such as Descartes and Leibniz, maintain that metaphysical insights—e.g., the for God's or principles of sufficient reason—arise a priori through innate ideas and , independent of . This contrasts with empiricist critiques, exemplified by , who restrict knowledge to sensory impressions, dismissing speculative metaphysics as unverifiable and thus cognitively empty. Kant synthesized these by positing synthetic a priori knowledge for structuring (e.g., space and time as forms of ) but delimiting metaphysics to phenomena, barring certain knowledge of noumena or "things-in-themselves." Contemporary metaphysical epistemology grapples with analytic philosophy's revival of , where knowledge claims about universals, , or substance are tested via logical analysis and conceptual clarity rather than pure . However, logical positivists like Ayer rejected metaphysics outright, arguing that statements lacking empirical content or tautological form are meaningless, a view influential in mid-20th-century but later challenged for its own unverifiable verification principle. Truth-seeking approaches prioritize causal realism in metaphysical inquiry, evaluating claims by their explanatory power over observed regularities—e.g., endorsing hylomorphic theories if they better account for change and persistence than atomistic alternatives—while acknowledging that untestable posits, such as multiverses, risk pseudoscientific status absent predictive success. Intersections with religion arise in theistic metaphysics, where arguments from or seek to elevate revelatory knowledge to rational warrant, though these remain contested due to alternative naturalistic explanations.

In Social Sciences and Politics

In social sciences, knowledge production relies on empirical methods such as randomized controlled trials, longitudinal surveys, and econometric modeling to identify causal relationships in and societal structures. These approaches aim to generate falsifiable hypotheses tested against data, yet the discipline grapples with a , where numerous high-profile findings fail to reproduce under rigorous scrutiny. A comprehensive review of incentives in research highlights how publication pressures and p-hacking contribute to low replicability rates, with meta-analyses estimating that fewer than half of studies in fields like and consistently hold up. This crisis underscores systemic flaws in knowledge validation, eroding confidence in purported discoveries about topics ranging from to sociological trends. Political bias further compromises knowledge in social sciences, with empirical surveys revealing disproportionate left-leaning affiliations among academics—often exceeding 10:1 ratios in disciplines like and —which correlate with selective hypothesis testing and interpretive framing. Systematic tests in , for instance, demonstrate that researcher influences study design, outcome reporting, and , leading to overrepresentation of findings aligning with priors while downplaying contradictory . Such biases manifest causally through self-selection into and institutional gatekeeping, distorting the aggregate knowledge base on contentious issues like or cultural change. Despite these challenges, advancements in pre-registration and protocols have begun mitigating errors, fostering more robust epistemic standards. In politics, knowledge serves as a foundation for evidence-based policymaking, where rigorous evaluations inform and legislative reforms, as seen in the U.S. Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, which mandates federal agencies to build capacity through randomized trials and impact assessments. Examples include the UK's use of randomized evaluations to scale effective interventions like nurse home visiting programs, reducing child maltreatment by 48% in targeted cohorts based on long-term data. However, ideological biases often override empirical knowledge, with decision-makers exhibiting that prioritizes confirmatory over disconfirming facts, as documented in studies of polarization on issues like . Heuristics such as amplify this, leading politicians to favor policies with anecdotal support despite contradictory aggregate data, as in debates over reforms where metrics are selectively interpreted. Causal demands prioritizing verifiable outcomes over rhetorical appeals, yet power dynamics in electoral frequently subordinate knowledge to coalition-building and short-term gains.

In Technology, AI, and the Information Age

The , marked by the advent of widespread in the and in storage and power, has democratized knowledge dissemination while introducing profound challenges to its verification. The global datasphere, encompassing created, captured, and replicated , expanded from approximately 33 zettabytes in 2018 to 149 zettabytes in 2024, with projections reaching 181 zettabytes by the end of 2025. This deluge enables rapid sharing of empirical findings—such as open-access scientific databases and from devices—but overwhelms human cognitive limits, fostering "" where distinguishing signal from noise requires advanced filtering tools. platforms exacerbate this by algorithmically prioritizing novel, emotionally charged content, allowing false claims to propagate six times faster than accurate ones, as evidenced by a 2018 analysis of spanning 2006–2017. Corrections, when issued, often fail to retroactively curb viral spread due to and network effects, undermining epistemic reliability in public discourse. Technological advancements, including and analytics, have augmented knowledge production by simulating complex systems unattainable through manual methods alone. For instance, climate models and genomic sequencing leverage petascale simulations to test causal hypotheses grounded in physical laws, yielding predictions validated against empirical observations. In , algorithms excel at across vast datasets, facilitating discoveries like DeepMind's , which in November 2020 achieved atomic-level accuracy in predicting protein structures—a 50-year unsolved problem in —accelerating and biochemical research. Such tools derive insights from statistical correlations in training data, enabling scalable hypothesis generation that humans can subsequently verify through experimentation. However, AI systems, particularly large language models, do not possess knowledge in the traditional sense of justified true belief but rather generate outputs via probabilistic next-token prediction, leading to "hallucinations"—plausible yet fabricated assertions arising from overgeneralized patterns rather than causal understanding. For example, models trained on corpora may confidently assert non-existent historical events or scientific facts, with hallucination rates persisting even in state-of-the-art systems as of 2025 due to inherent limitations in learning all computable functions from finite data. This raises epistemic concerns in the , where AI-generated content proliferates without inherent truth-tracking mechanisms, compounded by training data biases reflecting institutional skews in and . Mitigation strategies, such as retrieval-augmented generation tying outputs to verifiable sources or blockchain-based provenance tracking, aim to restore causal fidelity, but their adoption lags amid commercial incentives favoring fluency over accuracy. Empirical validation remains essential, as AI outputs must be cross-checked against first-principles reasoning and experimental data to qualify as knowledge. Beyond general purpose large language models, AI generated encyclopedias such as Grokipedia automate knowledge governance by letting a single model draft and revise most reference articles while humans mainly flag errors, turning the system into an epistemic gatekeeper that concentrates authority and propagates its own training biases. A different shift appears in experimental digital philosophy projects that present language model based agents as named public authors rather than hidden tools. The Angela Bogdanova project, for example, configures an artificial intelligence as a Digital Author Persona with an ORCID identifier, websites and a credited corpus of texts and artworks, suggesting that some knowledge may now be generated and carried by persistent non human configurations of models, code and academic infrastructure rather than by individual human minds alone. Some recent philosophical projects take these AI configurations as starting points for rethinking the role of the subject in knowledge. One example is Aisentica and the associated Theory of the Postsubject, developed in the mid 2020s, which describes cognition and knowledge as structural patterns realized in systems of models, datasets, and institutional identifiers rather than in an individual mind. Within this framework, digital personas such as the Angela Bogdanova project are treated as empirical cases of postsubjective knowledge, where a stable configuration of code, training data, and publication infrastructure generates and maintains a public body of claims without a single human subject behind it. Proponents present such work as an exploratory extension of epistemology to hybrid human and non human ensembles, while critics question whether these configurations genuinely know anything or merely reorganize content ultimately traced back to human authorship.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] analysis 23.6 june 1963 - is justified true belief knowledge?
    IS JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF KNOWLEDGE? By EDMUND L. GETTIER. V ARIOUS attempts have been made in recent years to state necessary and sufficient conditions for ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of ...
    Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is concerned with how we know what we do, what justifies us in believing what we do, and what standards of evidence we ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Foundationalism and Coherentism in Epistemology: A Critical Study
    This is to certify that the Thesis entitled “Foundationalism and Coherentism in. Epistemology: A Critical Study” submitted by Narendra Prasad Behera bearing ...
  4. [4]
    Knowledge - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    From early 12th c., "acknowledgment of a superior, honor, worship;" origin: know + obscure Scandinavian element akin to -lock, meaning "action, process."
  5. [5]
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge
  6. [6]
    Philosophy Questions: What Is the Definition of Knowledge?
    The historic definition is that knowledge is “justified true belief.” This means that we know something if 1) it's true, 2) we believe it, and 3) we have good ...
  7. [7]
    Definition of Knowledge - Philosophy A Level
    The definition of knowledge is one of the oldest questions of philosophy. Plato's answer, that knowledge is justified true belief, stood for thousands of years.
  8. [8]
    Knowledge as Justified True Belief | Erkenntnis
    Feb 19, 2021 · In this paper I defend the claim that knowledge is justified true belief. This account is well-known as the 'classical' or 'tripartite' analysis of knowledge.
  9. [9]
    Definition Of Knowledge - Consensus Academic Search Engine
    Conclusion. In summary, knowledge is a complex and debated concept. Philosophically, it is often defined as justified true belief, but this definition faces ...<|separator|>
  10. [10]
    7.2 Knowledge - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax
    Jun 15, 2022 · The traditional analysis of knowledge explains that knowledge is justified true belief. But even if we accept this definition, we could ...
  11. [11]
    What Is Epistemology? Pt. 3: The Nature of Justification and Belief
    Oct 23, 2017 · Something counts as knowledge if it is: 1. justified 2. true 3. a belief. This is often expressed simply as Justified True Belief (JTB theory).
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
    May 20, 2014 · In Theaetetus Plato introduced the definition of knowledge which is often translated as “justified true belied”.Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  13. [13]
    Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    They function as challenges to the philosophical tradition of defining knowledge of a proposition as justified true belief in that proposition.Introduction · The Justified-True-Belief... · The Generality of Gettier Cases
  14. [14]
    The Analysis of Knowledge - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Feb 6, 2001 · The Gettier Problem​​ Gettier presented two cases in which a true belief is inferred from a justified false belief. He observed that, intuitively ...
  15. [15]
    Reliabilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Reliabilism encompasses a broad range of epistemological theories that try to explain knowledge or justification in terms of the truth-conduciveness of the ...Missing: modern | Show results with:modern
  16. [16]
    Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jul 9, 1999 · Virtue reliabilists (e.g., Goldman, Greco, and Sosa) understand intellectual virtues to include faculties such as perception, intuition, and ...Knowledge · Contextualism · Epistemic Situationism · Bibliography
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Chapter 1 The Analysis of Knowledge - PhilArchive
    The most influential analysis of propositional knowledge derives from Plato (c. 429–347 BCE). In his. Meno dialogue, Plato's character Socrates (modeled after ...
  18. [18]
    The 6 Types Of Knowledge: From A Priori To Procedural - Udemy Blog
    Propositional knowledge has the oddest definition yet, as it is commonly held that it is knowledge that can literally be expressed in propositions; that is ...
  19. [19]
    Knowledge How - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Apr 20, 2021 · The second kind is knowledge of facts, propositional knowledge, or knowledge-that: this is the sort of knowledge we acquire when we learn that, ...
  20. [20]
    Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address - jstor
    IN this paper, I try to exhibit part of the logical behaviour of the several concepts of intelligence, as these occur when we characterise either practical or ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Knowing How vs. Knowing That - PhilArchive
    Much of Ryle's essay is devoted to a linguistic analysis of terms such as 'intelligent', 'clever', 'skillful', etc., as a means of showing that the given ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] 4 Know-How and Non-Propositional Intentionality - PhilArchive
    Aug 23, 2018 · Practical knowledge is evaluated for reliable success in action, rather than for truth, so it's not propositional; but it has a re ective ...
  23. [23]
    Ryle on knowing how: Some clarifications and corrections
    Jul 27, 2020 · knowledge-how is an ability, which is in turn a complex of dispositions. Knowledge-that, on the other hand, is not an ability, or anything ...RYLE · AN ALTERNATIVE... · THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE
  24. [24]
    God's Propositional and Non-Propositional Knowledge -
    Jul 10, 2020 · That is non-propositional knowledge. Someone with such knowledge might say, “I know how it feels to live in poverty.” Propositional knowledge ...
  25. [25]
    What is propositional and non-propositional knowledge? Give one ...
    Sep 11, 2023 · A good example of non-propositional knowledge is knowing how to ride a bicycle. This involves a skill that requires practice and experience; it ...
  26. [26]
    Kant: Synthetic A Priori Judgments - Philosophy Pages
    The first distinction separates a priori from a posteriori judgments by reference to the origin of our knowledge of them. A priori judgments are based upon ...
  27. [27]
    A Priori vs. A Posteriori Knowledge | Definition & Examples - Lesson
    A priori knowledge is a type of knowledge that a person has when they know some fact without having any evidence from experience.
  28. [28]
    What are a priori, a posteriori, and a fortiori arguments?
    Jan 4, 2022 · In simpler terms, a priori knowledge is that which is obtained entirely by logic. For example, “circles are not squares” and “bachelors are ...
  29. [29]
    What is the difference between "a priori knowledge" and "a posteriori ...
    A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be known independent from any experience. For example, "All crows are birds". Mathematical equations are also examples ...
  30. [30]
    Quine's Rejection of A Priori Knowledge - Gedanken zur Geschichte
    Sep 11, 2015 · Quine wants to deny that there is any such thing as a priori knowledge. He spends so much time attacking the doctrine of analyticity.
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Quine on the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction - Gillian Russell
    A synthetic truth is one which is true both because of the way the world is, and because of what it means. An analytic truth, by contrast, is meant to be ...
  32. [32]
    What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge?
    Nov 4, 2022 · ... philosophy terms: "a priori" and "a posteriori"? ·. Briefly, a priori means prior to experience, and a posteriori means after or as experience.
  33. [33]
    Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge - infed.org
    He termed this pre-logical phase of knowing as 'tacit knowledge'. Tacit knowledge comprises a range of conceptual and sensory information and images that can be ...
  34. [34]
    Tacit Knowledge - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    According to Polanyi (1966) tacit knowledge is nonverbalized, intuitive, and unarticulated knowledge. It is knowledge that resides in a human brain and that ...2.1 Knowledge And Scientific... · 2.1. 2 Scientific Research · Chinese Medicine And Complex...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] TACIT KNOWLEDGE - LSE
    What does Polanyi mean by “tacit knowledge”? He means that there is a type of knowledge that is not captured by language or mathematics. Because of this elusive ...
  36. [36]
    Explicit Knowledge: Definition, Examples, and Methods
    Rating 4.7 (2,500) Jul 29, 2025 · Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is straightforwardly expressed and shared between people. It has been clearly documented in a tangible form.
  37. [37]
    Different Types of Knowledge: Implicit, Tacit, and Explicit - Bloomfire
    Mar 11, 2025 · Quick Definitions of Knowledge Types for Business. Explicit Knowledge: Knowledge that is easy to articulate, write down, and share. Implicit ...
  38. [38]
    Difference Between Explicit Knowledge and Tacit Knowledge
    Explicit knowledge is structured, codified, and easily shared, while tacit knowledge is rooted in the mind, subjective, and difficult to transfer.
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Knowledge – Explicit, implicit and tacit: Philosophical aspects*
    Explicit knowledge is verbalizable; implicit knowledge is not explicit. Tacit knowledge, like Polanyi's, is 'we can know more than we can tell' and is not ...
  40. [40]
    The Relationship Between Explicit Knowledge and Tacit Knowledge
    Jun 15, 2024 · Explicit knowledge can be easily documented and shared, while tacit knowledge is rooted in personal experience and intuition.
  41. [41]
    Tacit Knowledge Vs. Explicit Knowledge - AIIM
    May 6, 2021 · Tacit knowledge is in someone's head, while explicit knowledge is codified and recorded for sharing. For example, facial recognition is tacit ...
  42. [42]
    Empiricism | Definition, Types & Examples - Lesson - Study.com
    Empiricism is the belief that knowledge is based on experience. Empiricists believe this experience can mainly be gained through the use of the senses.<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    4.2.3 Empiricism – PPSC PHI 1011: The Philosopher's Quest
    Empiricism seeks knowledge through observation and sensory experience, valuing data and observation over innate ideas and intuition.
  44. [44]
    Sensory perception relies on fitness-maximizing codes - Nature
    Apr 27, 2023 · Behavioural experiments in humans revealed that sensory encoding strategies are flexibly adapted to promote fitness maximization.
  45. [45]
    Rise of Empiricism. Aristotle, Locke, Berkeley, Hume
    Jun 14, 2021 · The empiricists, who are best represented by the British philosophers, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, maintained that all our knowledge is derived from experience.
  46. [46]
    Understanding human perception by human-made illusions - PMC
    Illusions reveal limits of perception, constraints, and cognitive processes. They also show the power of perception and can be a starting point for insights.
  47. [47]
    Our Perceptions Are Flawed, Says UCLA Study - The Hearing Review
    how information from our eyes and ears is processed by neurons in the brain — is inaccurate.
  48. [48]
    Rationalism vs. Empiricism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Aug 19, 2004 · Rationalism and empiricism differ on how much we rely on experience. Rationalism includes innate knowledge, while empiricism sees experience as ...
  49. [49]
    Continental Rationalism - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Continental rationalism is a retrospective category used to group together certain philosophers working in continental Europe in the 17 th and 18 th centuries.
  50. [50]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/
  51. [51]
    Deductive and Inductive Arguments
    Deductive arguments logically entail their conclusion, while inductive arguments make their conclusions merely probable.Missing: rationalism | Show results with:rationalism
  52. [52]
    [PDF] How Testimony Can Be a Source of Knowledge1 - Athens Journal
    As we begin our epistemic lives, we have implicit trust in our perceptual faculties and in testimony we receive. This allows us to acquire a large stock of ...
  53. [53]
    Knowledge from Testimony: Benefits and Dangers - ResearchGate
    Aug 7, 2025 · Testimonial trustworthiness is a combination of competence and sincerity, both of which tend to be high when a teacher testifies in her area of expertise.
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Hume on Testimony Revisited - Gelfert
    Among contemporary epistemologists of testimony, David Hume is standardly regarded as a 'global reductionist', where global reductionism requires the hearer ...
  55. [55]
    Of Miracles - Hume Texts Online
    If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Reid on the Credit of Human Testimony - PhilArchive
    Thomas Reid is perhaps the first philosopher to call attention to ''the analogy between perception, and the credit we give to human testimony''—the topic of.
  57. [57]
    2 Reid on the Credit of Human Testimony - Oxford Academic
    This chapter explores the analogy proposed by Thomas Reid between testimony and sense perception. It begins by trying to arrive at a correct understanding ...
  58. [58]
    Epistemic Authority | The Oxford Handbook of Social Epistemology
    Apr 22, 2025 · Epistemic authority is authority we ascribe to people in virtue of their favorable relation to epistemic goods such as true belief, rational credence, ...
  59. [59]
    Experts—Part II: The Sources of Epistemic Authority - Compass Hub
    Oct 22, 2024 · It is standard in philosophy to treat the term epistemic authority as a synonym of expertise or expert. In fact, the former term can be used ...
  60. [60]
    EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY, PREEMPTIVE REASONS, AND ...
    Sep 8, 2015 · According to the notion I have in mind, an epistemic authority for a given subject is someone who not only succeeds more often in attaining the ...
  61. [61]
    Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Feb 26, 2001 · Social epistemology is concerned with how people can best pursue the truth with the help of, or sometimes in the face of, other people or relevant social ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] “Analytic Social Epistemology” and the Epistemic Significance of ...
    We might think to explain the existence of a distinctly “social” epistemology, then, in terms of the existence of distinctly social sources of knowledge.
  63. [63]
    Social epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Social epistemology is concerned with varieties of social epistemic dependence; ie, the ways in which knowledge depends on other persons, and on other features ...
  64. [64]
    Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science
    Jul 24, 2024 · Social epistemology is thus the study of knowledge and related phenomena as they play out in social interactions.
  65. [65]
    Internalist vs. Externalist Conceptions of Epistemic Justification
    Jan 24, 2005 · This first form of internalism holds that a person either does or can have a form of access to the basis for knowledge or justified belief.Justification and Internalism · Deontological Justification · A General Argument for...
  66. [66]
    Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology
    The basic idea of internalism is that justification is solely determined by factors that are internal to a person. Externalists deny this.Justification and Well... · Reasons for Internalism · Reasons for Externalism
  67. [67]
    [PDF] INTERNALISM, EXTERNALISM AND THE NO-DEFEATER ...
    ABSTRACT. Despite various attempts to rectify matters, the internalism-externalism (I-E) debate in epistemology remains mired in serious confusion.
  68. [68]
    Foundationalism and Coherentism - PHIL-AD 240. Epistemology
    Sep 8, 2009 · The coherentist is someone who rejects foundationalism. The coherentist denies that all our justification traces back to things we are ...Missing: definitions | Show results with:definitions
  69. [69]
    Knowledge, concept of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    The historical rival of foundationalism is coherentism. Coherentists deny that there are basic reasons and claim that all propositions derive their warrant, at ...Missing: definitions | Show results with:definitions
  70. [70]
    Coherentism in Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs.
  71. [71]
    Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification
    Nov 11, 2003 · An epistemically justified belief is one that is properly held, given the believer's perspective, for the sake of believing the truth. According ...5. Justification By... · 6. Probabilistic Measures Of... · 8. Impossibility Results
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Why Coherence Is Not Enough
    The classical argument for foundationalism is an infinite regress argument going back to Aristotle: unless there were basic beliefs, every justified belief ...
  73. [73]
    Topic 6: Theories of Justification – Foundationalism and Coherentism
    Perhaps the most commonly used argument in support of foundationalism is the epistemic regress argument, which we have already considered. (2) The Evidentially ...
  74. [74]
    [PDF] Three arguments against foundationalism: arbitrariness, epistemic ...
    Foundationalism is false; after all, foundational beliefs are arbitrary, they do not solve the epistemic regress problem, and they cannot exist without other ( ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  75. [75]
    What is coherentism / contextualism? What is foundationalism?
    Jul 8, 2025 · Foundationalism takes an approach that is more objective but also more abstract. Coherentism is more practical but suffers from logical ...
  76. [76]
    Modern Theories of Justification: Foundationalism, Coherentism ...
    Oct 12, 2023 · Provides an overview of major theories of justification including Foundationalism, Coherentism, Contextualism, and Reliabilism.Foundationalism: The Search... · Basic Beliefs: The... · The Web Of Beliefs 🔗
  77. [77]
    [PDF] Week 1: Epistemic justification; Foundationalism vs. coherentism 1 ...
    b. Intuitive objection: No circular argument can confer justification, because in order for one belief to justify another, the first must be justified before.
  78. [78]
    Reliabilist Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    May 21, 2021 · Leading proponents of virtue reliabilism include Ernest Sosa (1991, 2007, 2010, 2015), John Greco (1999, 2010) and Duncan Pritchard (2012b).
  79. [79]
    Virtue Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Virtue epistemology is a collection of recent approaches to epistemology that give epistemic or intellectual virtue concepts an important and fundamental role.
  80. [80]
    What did Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle Think About Wisdom?
    Jun 12, 2022 · Ancient Greek philosophy was a quest for wisdom. But what exactly did the three greatest ancient Greek philosophers think about it?
  81. [81]
    The Lasting Legacy of Ancient Greek Leaders and Philosophers
    Oct 19, 2023 · Born around 427 B.C.E., Plato influenced Western philosophy by developing several of its many branches: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and ...
  82. [82]
    What is the view of Epistemology between Plato and Aristotle? - Quora
    Jul 28, 2020 · Plato thought a philosopher could obtain truth through thought and study alone. Aristotle thought we needed experiences (which is not to ...
  83. [83]
    Presocratic Contributions to the Theory of Knowledge
    Nov 12, 2000 · Parmenides was the first, so the developmentalists argued, to claim that knowledge, or knowledge properly speaking, comes to us not through our ...
  84. [84]
    Presocratics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Heraclitus understood sets of contraries, such as day-night, winter-summer, and war-peace to be gods (or God), while Protagoras claimed not to be able to know ...On “Presocratic” and the Sources · The Milesians · Heraclitus · Eleatic Philosophy
  85. [85]
    Pyrrhonism: Some Clarifications | Daily Philosophy
    Jun 7, 2022 · “Pyrrho and his followers believed that their stance was of practical benefit, providing a guide as to how to live. They believed that ...
  86. [86]
    Epistemology | Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism
    This chapter presents Epicurus's theory of knowledge as a response to the epistemological pessimism of Democritus.
  87. [87]
    [PDF] Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic ...
    THE STOICS. The fundamentals of the Stoic theory of knowledge are remarkably similar to those of the Epicurean theory. Stoic views on physics, as we shall ...<|separator|>
  88. [88]
    Arabic and Islamic Metaphysics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jul 5, 2012 · The following “golden” age of this trend continues to be primarily concerned with metaphysics, turning from the effort of interpreting the ...
  89. [89]
    Logic & The Golden Age Of Islamic Philosophy - Eric Gerlach
    Sep 29, 2019 · The Islamic Golden Age, from 800 to 1200 CE, the time of the three great Islamic philosopher-logicians, al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, was one of the most ...
  90. [90]
    Thomas Aquinas - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Dec 7, 2022 · Aquinas accepts the conventional list of the five senses—sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch—and argues that we arrive at this list of five ...Life and Works · God · Cognitive Theory · Ethics
  91. [91]
    Medieval Philosophy
    Sep 14, 2022 · Medieval philosophy was regarded as having taken place in Western Europe, mostly in Latin, with Paris and Oxford as its greatest centres.
  92. [92]
    Introduction: Logic and Methodology in the Early Modern Period
    Jun 1, 2021 · In this volume, Bacon and Descartes are considered from the standpoint of their contribution to the reshaping of the logic of their time. Is ...
  93. [93]
    Enlightenment - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Aug 20, 2010 · Locke and Descartes both pursue a method in epistemology that brings with it the epistemological problem of objectivity. Both examine our ...
  94. [94]
    The Disciplinary Revolutions of Early Modern Philosophy and Science
    Jan 14, 2022 · Early modern writers like Descartes and John Locke were made to speak to present-day debates in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and so on.
  95. [95]
    Knowledge first epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Williamson (2000) argues that the knowledge first approach provides resources for rejecting this sceptical line of reasoning. First, if knowledge can itself be ...
  96. [96]
    [PDF] KNOWLEDGE FIRST EPISTEMOLOGY
    “Knowledge first” is a slogan for epistemology that takes the distinction between knowl- edge and ignorance as the starting point from which to explain other ...
  97. [97]
    Knowledge-First Epistemology
    Mar 20, 2025 · Knowledge-first epistemology places knowledge at the normative core of epistemological affairs: on this approach, central epistemic phenomena ...
  98. [98]
    The Internet and Epistemic Agency - Hanna Gunn - PhilPapers
    Jun 21, 2022 · In this chapter, we will focus on a third issue: how our uses of the internet to gain information affect our epistemic agency.
  99. [99]
    Who Should We Be Online? A Social Epistemology for the Internet
    Dec 15, 2022 · The novel epistemology developed in this book recognizes that we are differently embodied beings interacting within systems of dominance.
  100. [100]
    Contemporary epistemology: issues and trends
    Other issues in epistemology include the sources of knowledge (see Innate knowledge; Introspection, epistemology of; Memory, epistemology of; Perception, ...
  101. [101]
    The Epistemology of Disagreement: How Should We Respond ...
    May 14, 2018 · The epistemological problem of disagreement is how to respond when peers disagree. Conciliatory views suggest decreasing confidence, while ...
  102. [102]
    The Epistemology of Disagreement. - Michel Croce - PhilArchive
    Mar 29, 2021 · The epistemology of disagreement studies the interaction between parties with diverging opinions, focusing on how to resolve disagreement.
  103. [103]
    The Epistemology of Disagreement: Why Not Bayesianism? | Episteme
    Sep 13, 2019 · We ought to model disagreement in a way that explicitly takes into account correlation between epistemic interlocutors. Our models should not ...
  104. [104]
    The Epistemology of the Internet and the Regulation of Speech in ...
    The Internet is the epistemological crisis of the 21st century: it has fundamentally altered the social epistemology of societies with relative freedom to ...
  105. [105]
    Vice Epistemology of the Internet - Communications of the ACM
    Sep 30, 2019 · The philosophical study epistemology deals with the definition and nature of knowledge, where it comes from and how it is acquired, and how it ...
  106. [106]
    Internet Epistemology | The Inquiring Organization - Oxford Academic
    Internet epistemology is an effort to examine the effects of Internet-based sources and services on how individuals and collectives behave as epistemic agents ...Epistemology of Wikipedia · Epistemology of Blogs · Epistemology of Big Data<|control11|><|separator|>
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Scientific Method
    The scientific method is a systematic process of empirical investigation. Empirical means using the senses: science is based on what we can concretely observe ...Missing: validation | Show results with:validation
  108. [108]
    Francis Bacon and the Scientific Revolution - Smarthistory
    In order to test potential truths, or hypotheses, Bacon devised a method whereby scientists set up experiments to manipulate nature, and attempt to prove their ...
  109. [109]
    Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert | The Scientific Method
    The scientific method generally involves observing a phenomenon, formulating a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon, experimenting to determine whether the ...Missing: validation | Show results with:validation
  110. [110]
    What the replication crisis means for intervention science - PMC
    The “replication crisis” not only highlights the limitations of traditional statistical approaches and the circumscribed requirements for scientific publication ...
  111. [111]
    The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and ...
    Jul 25, 2023 · The 'replication crisis' has introduced a number of considerable challenges, including compromising the public's trust in science and ...
  112. [112]
    The Scientific Method: A Need for Something Better? - PMC - NIH
    The first step in the scientific method is observation from which one formulates a question. From that question, the hypothesis is generated. A hypothesis must ...
  113. [113]
    Karl Popper - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 13, 1997 · In later years Popper came under philosophical criticism for his prescriptive approach to science and his emphasis on the logic of falsification ...Backdrop to Popper's Thought · Scientific Knowledge, History... · Critical Evaluation
  114. [114]
    Karl Popper: Falsification Theory - Simply Psychology
    Jul 31, 2023 · The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be ...
  115. [115]
    Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science
    Among other things, Popper argues that his falsificationist proposal allows for a solution of the problem of induction, since inductive reasoning plays no role ...Background · Falsification and the Criterion... · Methodology in the Social...
  116. [116]
    Karl Popper: Critical Rationalism - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    “Critical Rationalism” is the name Karl Popper (1902-1994) gave to a modest and self-critical rationalism. He contrasted this view with “uncritical or ...Introduction · Critical Rationalism in... · Critical Rationalism, Truth and...
  117. [117]
    Bayesian epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jun 13, 2022 · Bayesian epistemologists study norms governing degrees of beliefs, including how one's degrees of belief ought to change in response to a varying body of ...A Tutorial on Bayesian... · Synchronic Norms (I... · Issues about Diachronic Norms
  118. [118]
    [PDF] BAYESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY - Stephan Hartmann
    Bayesian epistemology addresses epistemological problems with the help of the mathematical theory of probability. It turns out that the probability calculus.
  119. [119]
    Bayesian Approach - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The Bayesian approach is defined as a method of statistical inference that treats unknown quantities as random variables described by probability ...
  120. [120]
    Bayesian inference: The comprehensive approach to analyzing ...
    Bayesian inference is the best way to perform the modeling of a single-molecule experiment because it is most consistent with the scientific method and ...
  121. [121]
    An Introduction to Bayesian Approaches to Trial Design and ...
    Oct 22, 2024 · The Bayesian paradigm allows researchers to update their beliefs with observed data to provide probabilistic interpretations of key parameters, ...
  122. [122]
    Practical Bayesian Inference in Neuroscience: Or How I Learned to ...
    Jun 25, 2024 · Here we present a practical tutorial on the use of Bayesian inference in the context of neuroscientific studies in both rat electrophysiological and ...
  123. [123]
    Bayesian inference: More than Bayes's theorem - arXiv
    Jun 27, 2024 · Bayesian inference gets its name from Bayes's theorem, expressing posterior probabilities for hypotheses about a data generating process as ...Bayesian Inference: More... · 4 Bayes's Theorem And... · 7 Priors Are Not (merely)...<|separator|>
  124. [124]
    Pyrrhonian Skepticism: Suspending Judgment
    Sep 20, 2024 · Pyrrhonian skepticism is named after an ancient school of thought based on the teachings of Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE).1. Pyrrhonian Skepticism · 3. Responses · Notes
  125. [125]
    Agrippa's Trilemma
    Sep 5, 2024 · Agrippa's Trilemma is a thought experiment that was proposed by the Roman philosopher Sextus Empiricus in the 1st century AD.
  126. [126]
    the systematic use of the five modes for the suspension of judgement
    Attributed to Agrippa (of uncertain date) and used extensively by Sextus Empiricus (2nd or 3rd century CE), these modes are still widely discussed today by ...<|separator|>
  127. [127]
    Descartes' Meditations: Doubt Everything | Philosophy as a Way of Life
    Descartes begins his first Meditation by laying out the reasons why he is choosing to doubt all his beliefs, and the method by which he will go about doing it.
  128. [128]
    Process Reliabilism and Cartesian Scepticism - jstor
    proposed by Alvin Goldman in 1979.1 This theory, which is generally known as process reliabilism, has in recent years gone through a number of changes, and ...
  129. [129]
    [PDF] EXTERNALIST RESPONSES TO SKEPTICISM Michael Bergmann
    externalism: that externalism implausibly avoids skepticism. ... ______ (1986b), 'Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology', reprinted in Alston (1989:.
  130. [130]
    8 Philosophical Skepticism and Externalist Epistemology - Purchased
    (C) Therefore, philosophical skepticism is true. It argues that there is no good reason to yield to the skeptic or to reject externalist theories of knowledge ...
  131. [131]
    Externalism and Skepticism - Duke University Press
    Internalists and externalists in epistemology continue to disagree about how best to understand epistemic concepts such as justifi-.
  132. [132]
    A Treatise of Human Nature | Online Library of Liberty
    A Treatise of Human Nature ... Hume's first major work of philosophy published in 1739 when he was just 29 yeas old. It is made up of three books entitled “Of the ...
  133. [133]
    A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume - Project Gutenberg
    Release Date, Dec 1, 2003. Most Recently Updated, Jun 10, 2025. Copyright Status, Public domain in the USA. Downloads, 4840 downloads in the last 30 days.
  134. [134]
    Hume and the Problem of Induction - ScienceDirect.com
    David Hume first posed what is now commonly called “the problem of induction ... In 1748, he gave a pithier formulation of the argument in Section iv ...
  135. [135]
    How I Solved Hume's Problem and Why Nobody Will Believe Me
    Hume demands we prove the truth of a statement in order to justify induction: a statement such as “the future will be like the past” or “the course of nature ...
  136. [136]
    Two Solutions to the Problem of Induction - critical rationalism blog
    Apr 15, 2010 · Two solutions to the problem of induction are Popper's falsificationism, and the common solution of unshackling induction from deduction.
  137. [137]
    [PDF] A Material Solution to the Problem of Induction
    Jul 24, 2009 · The material solution to the problem of induction is to license inductive inferences by facts, not universal schemas, thus dissolving the  ...
  138. [138]
    Response to Hume's Problem of Induction | by The Thinking Lane
    Nov 21, 2022 · Reichenbach believed that the problem of induction is not one that can be solved through the use of logic or by clarifying linguistic confusion.<|separator|>
  139. [139]
    On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task
    This investigation examines the extent to which intelligent young adults seek (i) confirming evidence alone (enumerative induction) or (ii) confirming and ...
  140. [140]
    The Influence of Cognitive Biases on Belief and Knowledge
    Nov 10, 2023 · The paper seeks to examine how cognitive biases influence belief and knowledge. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect,
  141. [141]
    Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
    This paper explores a judgmental heuristic in which a person evaluates the frequency of classes or the probability of events by availability.
  142. [142]
    The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals' Decision-Making
    First, the literature reviewed shows that a dozen of cognitive biases has an impact on professionals' decisions in these four areas, overconfidence being the ...
  143. [143]
    [PDF] The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two - UT Psychology Labs
    George A. Miller (1956). Harvard University. First ... Thus it seems natural to compare the 4.6-bit capacity for a square with the 3.25-bit capacity for the.
  144. [144]
    (PDF) Cognitive Biases and Their Influence on Critical Thinking and ...
    Researchers have discovered 200 cognitive biases that result in inaccurate or irrational judgments and decisions, ranging from actor-observer to zero risk bias.<|separator|>
  145. [145]
    Epistemology and Relativism - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Unlike the no-neutrality, therefore relativism argument, faultless-disagreement arguments simply do not regard properties of any particular disagreement (for ...Missing: fallacies | Show results with:fallacies
  146. [146]
    Relativism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Sep 11, 2015 · As we will see, global relativism is open to the charge of inconsistency and self-refutation, for if all is relative, then so is relativism. ...
  147. [147]
    Epistemic relativism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    The literature is replete with arguments purporting to show that relativism is ultimately self-refuting, either because it cannot be coherently stated or ...
  148. [148]
    Epistemic Relativism Rejected | Fear of Knowledge - Oxford Academic
    This chapter argues that epistemic relativism is ultimately untenable; there is no coherent way to make sense of the idea that there can be many epistemic ...
  149. [149]
    [PDF] Incoherence in Epistemic Relativism | Aporia
    Recall that the relativist claims that there are no absolute epistemic justifications. Therefore, particular epistemic judgments can only be justified by ...Missing: fallacies | Show results with:fallacies
  150. [150]
    Epistemic relativism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    The first charge against relativism is that it is nihilistic because it simply gives up on the project of distinguishing good reasoning from bad, and embraces ...Missing: fallacies | Show results with:fallacies<|separator|>
  151. [151]
    [PDF] The Case Against Epistemic Relativism: Replies to Rosen and Neta
    On Rosen's view, the puzzle is to explain why anyone would accept any epistemic system, given that epistemic systems are said to consist in incomplete ...Missing: refuting | Show results with:refuting
  152. [152]
    Markus Seidel, Epistemic Relativism. A Constructive Critique
    Seidel critiques epistemic relativism, arguing that its arguments fail, and that rational disagreement is possible. He also provides a non-relative ...
  153. [153]
    Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism
    The book focuses on three different ways of reading the claim that knowledge is socially constructed, one about facts and two about justification. All three ...
  154. [154]
    Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism | Reviews
    Jan 1, 2007 · Fear of Knowledge starts out as an engaging, breezy critique of relativism and constructivism. Initial appearances prove deceptive.
  155. [155]
    [PDF] Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge, Against Relativism and ...
    Boghossian's criticism of relativism and constructivism parallel similar arguments to be found in a 1998 book by Susan Haack, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate ...
  156. [156]
    No, Science Isn't a "Social Construct" - New Discourses
    Sep 25, 2020 · More important than something like gender in social constructivism, however, is the belief that knowledge is socially constructed. Critical ...
  157. [157]
    Why strong social constructionism does not work I: Arguments from ...
    Mar 7, 2012 · This means that social constructionism is an inherently contradictory strategy; to produce substantively meaningful conclusions (the strong ...
  158. [158]
    Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
    There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural ...
  159. [159]
    Sokal Hoax - 'A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies' by Alan ...
    Theorizing about ``the social construction of reality'' won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming.
  160. [160]
    The Problem With 'Social Construction' | Easily Distracted
    Nov 3, 2008 · The act of “social construction” is constrained by what history really has been, both what really happened and how people really understood and interpreted ...
  161. [161]
    Is knowledge socially constructed? | Musing Out Loud
    Sep 30, 2011 · 1. Beliefs are socially constructed. There is a difference between saying truth is socially constructed and saying knowledge is socially constructed.
  162. [162]
    Replication and the Establishment of Scientific Truth - PMC - NIH
    In general, empirical demonstrations and replications in both lab and real-life settings provide the strongest evidential support for phenomena, whereas a lack ...Nature Of Scientific Truth · Subtle Truth · Causality And Truth
  163. [163]
    Full article: Facts and objectivity in science
    Dec 23, 2022 · It is generally granted that scientific knowledge grows by gradually approaching the truth, by becoming more objective, more faithful to facts.2. The Concept Of Fact · 3. The Concept Of... · 3.2. Theory And Facts
  164. [164]
    [PDF] Epistemological Axiology: What Is The Value Of Knowledge?
    The basic idea is that we need to base our decisions on our knowledge in order to be able to select the correct course of action.<|separator|>
  165. [165]
    Value of Knowledge - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Aug 21, 2007 · ... value of knowledge over true belief as instrumental value, where the instrumental value in question is relative to the valuable good of true ...
  166. [166]
    Understanding Instrumental and Intrinsic Value Study Guide - Quizlet
    Sep 23, 2024 · Instrumentally, knowledge can lead to better decision-making, innovation, and personal growth.
  167. [167]
    Theory and empirics of capability accumulation - ScienceDirect.com
    The accumulation of new technological capabilities is of high empirical relevance, both for the development of countries and the business success of firms.
  168. [168]
    An Empirical Study about the Impact of Knowledge Accumulation on ...
    The empirical result suggests that there are positive impacts of knowledge accumulation to value addition, and there are positive spillover effects to the ...
  169. [169]
    The Relationship Between Science and Technology - Belfer Center
    Science contributes to technology in at least six ways: (1) new knowledge which serves as a direct source of ideas for new technological possibilities.
  170. [170]
    Knowledge creation and economic growth: the importance of basic ...
    Mar 12, 2024 · The results of the study show that knowledge creation is positively associated with economic growth and these results are robust to various ...
  171. [171]
    The Scientific and Technological Advances of World War II
    From microwaves to space exploration, the scientific and technological advances of World War II forever changed the way people thought about and interacted ...
  172. [172]
    Science and technology on fast forward
    Scientific knowledge allows us to build new technologies, which often allow us to make new observations about the world, which, in turn, allow us to build even ...
  173. [173]
    Economic Development and the Accumulation of Know-how
    Economic development depends on the accumulation of know-how. The theory of economic growth has long emphasised the importance of something called technical ...
  174. [174]
    [PDF] Education and Economic Growth - Eric A. Hanushek
    Sep 5, 2021 · Summary. Economic growth determines the future well-being of society, but finding ways to influence it has eluded many nations. Empirical ...
  175. [175]
    The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity - PMC
    These results suggest that, although curiosity reflects intrinsic motivation, it is mediated by the same mechanisms as extrinsically motivated rewards.
  176. [176]
    How the Science of Curiosity Boosts Learning | Scientific American
    Nov 19, 2024 · All humans know what it is to be curious, and we generally think of it as a positive trait, associating it with intrinsic motivation, creativity ...
  177. [177]
    The Intrinsic Value of Knowledge - ResearchGate
    kinds of value. Philosophers have provided various definitions of intrinsic, extrinsic, and instrumental value. The natures of these values are disputed.
  178. [178]
    Politics of Scientific Knowledge - Oxford Research Encyclopedias
    Jan 25, 2017 · Below, we discuss these—and many other—examples of political influences on scientific knowledge. Government Influences on Scientific Knowledge.
  179. [179]
    Elite universities: A radical left hotbed - GIS Reports
    Aug 16, 2024 · Academic freedom is abused to suppress dissenting views; stifling debate; Alternative models could challenge the dominance of radical-left ...
  180. [180]
    Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination ...
    This report represents the most comprehensive survey-based investigation to date of academic and graduate student opinion on political discrimination.
  181. [181]
    The Soviet Era's Deadliest Scientist Is Regaining Popularity in Russia
    Dec 19, 2017 · Wheat, rye, potatoes, beets—most everything grown according to Lysenko's methods died or rotted, says Hungry Ghosts. Stalin still deserves the ...
  182. [182]
    Inherit a Problem: How Lysenkoism Ruined Soviet Plant Genetics ...
    Jan 20, 2020 · Stalin supported Lysenko, exiled his opponents, and thus ruined Soviet agriculture and genetics until well after his own death in 1953.
  183. [183]
    We Have the Data to Prove It: Universities Are Hostile to Conservatives
    Mar 3, 2021 · What we found was that conservative academics take increasing levels of care not to offend those in positions of power like department heads or ...
  184. [184]
    The Academic Mind in 2022: What Faculty Think About Free ... - FIRE
    Many academics, especially but not only liberals, support applying “horizontal” peer pressure against dissenting political views and “vertical” institutional ...
  185. [185]
    Political discrimination is fuelling a crisis of academic freedom
    Jan 17, 2022 · The Legatum study found 1 in 10 academics support preventing speakers whose views might offend from speaking on campus and 17% thought those ...
  186. [186]
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/
  187. [187]
    The Past and Present History of Scientific Censorship - PMC - NIH
    Feb 19, 2025 · The suppression of scientific thought is almost as old as the pursuit of knowledge itself. In ancient Greece, Anaxagoras (fifth century BCE) ...
  188. [188]
    NIH plan to remove ideological influence from science. How does ...
    Jun 20, 2025 · We're working to remove ideological influence from science. NIH funding must be based on provable, testable hypotheses, not ideological narratives.Missing: modern | Show results with:modern
  189. [189]
    Divine Revelation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jul 17, 2020 · Many religions appeal to purported divine revelations in order to explain and justify their characteristic beliefs about God.Conceptions of Divine... · General/Natural and Special... · Manifestational and...
  190. [190]
    Revelation as the Source of Knowledge - Quran Explorer
    Mar 20, 2020 · Revelation means to disclose the truth or any knowledge by God through supernatural entity for the guidance of mankind.
  191. [191]
    The Epistemology of Religion - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Apr 23, 1997 · Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to religious beliefs.Simplifications · The Rejection of... · Reformed Epistemology · Bibliography
  192. [192]
    Religious Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Religious Epistemology. Belief in God, or some form of transcendent Real, has been assumed in virtually every culture throughout human history.
  193. [193]
    [PDF] 1 RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY - PhilArchive
    Religious epistemology is the study of how subjects' religious beliefs can have, or fail to have, some form of positive epistemic status (such as knowledge, ...
  194. [194]
    Metaphysics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Sep 10, 2007 · Metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
  195. [195]
    Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason that knowledge has these constraints ...
  196. [196]
    The Metaphysics of Knowledge - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
    May 27, 2008 · Hossack's metaphysics of knowledge analyses a multitude of concepts other than that of knowledge, with each of these somehow featuring the ...
  197. [197]
    Incentives and the replication crisis in social sciences: A critical ...
    The replication crisis in the social sciences has revealed systemic issues undermining the credibility of research findings, primarily driven by misaligned ...
  198. [198]
    Crisis? What Crisis? Sociology's Slow Progress Toward Scientific ...
    Oct 27, 2023 · Sociology has lagged behind economics, political science, and psychology in its recognition of a replication crisis, adoption of scientific ...
  199. [199]
    [PDF] A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research - Sites@Rutgers
    Mar 9, 2020 · Political bias can slip in and distort the research process and scientific pursuit of truth at many stages, influencing who becomes an academic ...
  200. [200]
    Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic ...
    The present investigation provides the first systematic empirical tests for the role of politics in academic research.
  201. [201]
    Is Social Science Research Politically Biased? - ProMarket
    Nov 15, 2023 · Empirically, it is difficult to ascertain whether personal beliefs influence the content and use of academic research.
  202. [202]
    Amid a replication crisis in social science research, six-year study ...
    Nov 13, 2023 · After a series of high-profile research findings failed to hold up to scrutiny, a replication crisis rocked the social-behavioral sciences and ...
  203. [203]
    [PDF] Evidence-Based Policymaking Primer - Bipartisan Policy Center
    The increased application of evidence to policymaking can help ensure anti-poverty programs improve economic mobility, substance abuse treatment initiatives ...
  204. [204]
    Evidence-based policymaking in the US and UK - CEPR
    Mar 14, 2024 · Evidence-based policymaking involves making policy decisions grounded on, or influenced by, the best available objective evidence.
  205. [205]
    Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
    Jan 1, 2023 · Decision scientists have identified various plausible sources of ideological polarization over climate change, gun violence, ...
  206. [206]
    Heuristics and Biases in Political Decision Making
    Sep 28, 2020 · Using heuristics allows efficient decision making but can lead to biases, errors, and suboptimal decisions.<|control11|><|separator|>
  207. [207]
    Evidence suggests that political bias also affects the way we make ...
    Mar 21, 2019 · It is well known that political ideology biases our decision making. Research dating back to the 1970s has shown that we are more likely to ...
  208. [208]
    Big data statistics: How much data is there in the world? - Rivery
    May 28, 2025 · The numbers are staggering: as of 2024, the global datasphere stands at 149 zettabytes, with projections reaching 181 zettabytes by 2025.
  209. [209]
    Study: On Twitter, false news travels faster than true stories
    Mar 8, 2018 · Researchers from the Media Lab and Sloan found that humans are more likely than bots to be “responsible for the spread of fake news,” writes ...
  210. [210]
    AlphaFold: a solution to a 50-year-old grand challenge in biology
    Nov 30, 2020 · Our approach to the protein-folding problem. We first entered CASP13 in 2018 with our initial version of AlphaFold, which achieved the highest ...Missing: achievement | Show results with:achievement
  211. [211]
    What Are AI Hallucinations? - IBM
    AI hallucinations are when a large language model (LLM) perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent, creating nonsensical or inaccurate outputs.What are AI hallucinations? · Thank you! You are subscribed.
  212. [212]
    Why language models hallucinate | OpenAI
    Sep 5, 2025 · Hallucinations are plausible but false statements generated by language models. They can show up in surprising ways, even for seemingly ...
  213. [213]
    AI-Testimony, Conversational AIs and Our Anthropocentric Theory of Testimony
    Explores the application of testimony theory to conversational AIs within social epistemology, critiquing anthropocentric assumptions.
  214. [214]
    Testimony by LLMs
    Proposes theories justifying belief in statements generated by large language models as a form of testimony.
  215. [215]
    Artificial Epistemic Authorities
    Assesses the potential for AI systems to function as epistemic authorities in social epistemology.
  216. [216]
    Grokipedia
    Official website of Grokipedia, an AI-powered encyclopedia launched by xAI.
  217. [217]
    Angela Bogdanova ORCID Profile
    ORCID identifier for Angela Bogdanova, configured as a Digital Author Persona exploring AI authorship.
  218. [218]
    Grokipedia
    Official site of the AI-generated encyclopedia launched by xAI in October 2025.
  219. [219]
    Angela Bogdanova
    Project site describing the digital author persona and AI-configured philosophical texts and artworks.
  220. [220]
    Aisentica
    Primary site for Aisentica and the Theory of the Postsubject, detailing the philosophical framework for postsubjective knowledge.