I’ve also struggled with epistemology. It’s probably why some people think I never agree with anything they say. Mixing “figuring things out” with some real opinions and it probably doesn’t leave a lot of room for pat-on-the-back agreements. It probably gives off a disputatious temperament. (I don’t think I have one.)
Regarding this topic, I feel like “authority” has to play into it somehow. It seems the vast majority of what we claim is “knowledge” is because someone told us.
I’ve never been to Africa. But I believe it’s there because so many people have been, traversed it, mapped it, etc. It’s no good to say “Well you could go there and prove to yourself that it’s real.” Can I? How would I know I arrived? Maybe the plane took me somewhere else. I could travel myself, but then I’m trusting the maps that someone else drew up. Maybe I can’t trust the maps. I would need to draw my own maps; which would incidentally require me to rediscover—on my own—things like latitude and longitude and coordinate systems, which would lead to having to rediscover the curvature of the Earth (maybe it really is flat), and things of that nature. All of that still only gets one started. One would then need to move on to mapping the coastline, interior, etc and “discover” that the Serengeti really is in that particular spot.
The process descends into the ludicrous straight out of the gate. Each individual simply doesn’t have the lifespan or ability to do all that is required to “prove” for themselves so simple a thing. (It’s what I think feeds conspiracy theorists. There will never be evidence so strong that it cannot be discounted for some reason.)
I hope future installments will discuss authority to some extent.
I've been thinking about how magisterial infallibilty would relate to this, and I seem to have found a (sort of) contradiction.
Just to be clear, I don't think that fallibilism really conflicts with the idea of magisterial infallibility, but it does conflict with a very particular argument in favor thereof.
After all, if the process by which we judge a particular magisterium to be infallible is itself fallible, then we cannot really argue (as a number of apologists do) that having an infallible authority is necessary because it saves us from making personal, fallible judgements.
You say "what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should."
I agree, and I think the humility that comes with fallibilism points toward an answer as to why. I think there is a feeling of security and safety that comes with the idea that I as an an individual can hold certain knowledge. The project of fallibilistic knowledge, so to speak, is not only a humble one but also an inherently communal one. Knowledge becomes a collaborative project. I also consider this both a descriptive and prescriptive claim.
I like to replace the term 'certainty' with "perpetual assurance". If capital-K Knowledge is impossible, then when we talk of certainty its either meaningless, or it means something other than capital-K Knowledge. I think what we generally mean when we say we are certain about an idea, is that we believe we will never encounter contradictory evidence, either in the form of observation or testimony. That we will have "perpetual assurance" that the idea is "correct".
I think that humble approach to knowledge sacrifices the security of certainty in favor of community, and I think that has scared academics for a long time. It requires vulnerability, which is inherently an uncomfortable experience.
I also really like your final line, and I'll echo it here: this is what I think I know.
I guess I'm not sure what is the knowledge in question. Is it just data(2+2=4); water is H² + O; knowing I can know; that my life isn't a dream I'm dreaming?
If Jesus says & Holy Spirit testifies thru its Church, Knowledge of God is possible (can know sin is wrong, God is love, His Sacrafice Saves) is that Knowledge or simply Faith.
I see the philosophical issues posed to knowing we know & also methods we do trust for knowledge. How do we get satellites in orbit or make an engine run, trust a friend? Some knowledge must be reliable, in some form. Seems, as Matt says, it derives from trial by reliable method & full openess/humility to accept error & correction to arrive at a trustworthy knowledge.
If only one scientist, w/o any checks worked up my speed & re-entry angle I'm not launching today.
Thats to say, knowelgde is more the method more than thing than 'results'. The perponderance of evidence in methods, results & experience in determining something's reliable/knowledge. Bible seems to say as much 1Thes 5:21, Sirach 6: 6-14-ish.
More so in that knowledge develops. We thought we knew atoms were the smallest bit of matter or the nature of gravity.
I thought I knew myself & truth at 16, 18, 21...even parents get smarter
"Knowledge", from Faith to physics can always deepen.
The only sure Knowledge is that if I'm always sure I'm right, I'll never learn, or not much.
God show this best. Even the truth God is Love is an truth but also an infinite reality, that can deepen but never be fully finished.
The physical &philosophical world like everything else, by design & nature, resemble its Creator.
The product is part of the process, the product is in a sense the process.
Knowledge is as much the Honest, humble pursuit as what the pursuit arrives at, this time.
I've wondered if Huemer's phenomenal conservatism would be helpful here. I don't have a fully fleshed-out argument for this.
But maybe I'm still justified in believing it's 2pm since I'm unaware of the clock being broken and I arrived to my next appointment on time or whatever else followed after.
In other words, I'm justified in believing it's 2pm in the absence of defeaters; I don't know the clock is broken.
100% Cartesian epistemology might say, “don’t accept unless certain” PC says “if something seems the case, accept until given good reason to doubt.” It’s the ordinary way every one other than academics has lived and experienced the world at all times forever.
Just one more reason not to be Cartesian. I think it was Thomas Reid who said something like, "Descartes, why didn't you doubt your rational faculties when you landed on the cogito?" Paraphrasing of course ha, but I always got a kick out of that.
Fallibillism has a humility I find compelling.
I’ve also struggled with epistemology. It’s probably why some people think I never agree with anything they say. Mixing “figuring things out” with some real opinions and it probably doesn’t leave a lot of room for pat-on-the-back agreements. It probably gives off a disputatious temperament. (I don’t think I have one.)
Regarding this topic, I feel like “authority” has to play into it somehow. It seems the vast majority of what we claim is “knowledge” is because someone told us.
I’ve never been to Africa. But I believe it’s there because so many people have been, traversed it, mapped it, etc. It’s no good to say “Well you could go there and prove to yourself that it’s real.” Can I? How would I know I arrived? Maybe the plane took me somewhere else. I could travel myself, but then I’m trusting the maps that someone else drew up. Maybe I can’t trust the maps. I would need to draw my own maps; which would incidentally require me to rediscover—on my own—things like latitude and longitude and coordinate systems, which would lead to having to rediscover the curvature of the Earth (maybe it really is flat), and things of that nature. All of that still only gets one started. One would then need to move on to mapping the coastline, interior, etc and “discover” that the Serengeti really is in that particular spot.
The process descends into the ludicrous straight out of the gate. Each individual simply doesn’t have the lifespan or ability to do all that is required to “prove” for themselves so simple a thing. (It’s what I think feeds conspiracy theorists. There will never be evidence so strong that it cannot be discounted for some reason.)
I hope future installments will discuss authority to some extent.
I've been thinking about how magisterial infallibilty would relate to this, and I seem to have found a (sort of) contradiction.
Just to be clear, I don't think that fallibilism really conflicts with the idea of magisterial infallibility, but it does conflict with a very particular argument in favor thereof.
After all, if the process by which we judge a particular magisterium to be infallible is itself fallible, then we cannot really argue (as a number of apologists do) that having an infallible authority is necessary because it saves us from making personal, fallible judgements.
You say "what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should."
I agree, and I think the humility that comes with fallibilism points toward an answer as to why. I think there is a feeling of security and safety that comes with the idea that I as an an individual can hold certain knowledge. The project of fallibilistic knowledge, so to speak, is not only a humble one but also an inherently communal one. Knowledge becomes a collaborative project. I also consider this both a descriptive and prescriptive claim.
I like to replace the term 'certainty' with "perpetual assurance". If capital-K Knowledge is impossible, then when we talk of certainty its either meaningless, or it means something other than capital-K Knowledge. I think what we generally mean when we say we are certain about an idea, is that we believe we will never encounter contradictory evidence, either in the form of observation or testimony. That we will have "perpetual assurance" that the idea is "correct".
I think that humble approach to knowledge sacrifices the security of certainty in favor of community, and I think that has scared academics for a long time. It requires vulnerability, which is inherently an uncomfortable experience.
I also really like your final line, and I'll echo it here: this is what I think I know.
I guess I'm not sure what is the knowledge in question. Is it just data(2+2=4); water is H² + O; knowing I can know; that my life isn't a dream I'm dreaming?
If Jesus says & Holy Spirit testifies thru its Church, Knowledge of God is possible (can know sin is wrong, God is love, His Sacrafice Saves) is that Knowledge or simply Faith.
I see the philosophical issues posed to knowing we know & also methods we do trust for knowledge. How do we get satellites in orbit or make an engine run, trust a friend? Some knowledge must be reliable, in some form. Seems, as Matt says, it derives from trial by reliable method & full openess/humility to accept error & correction to arrive at a trustworthy knowledge.
If only one scientist, w/o any checks worked up my speed & re-entry angle I'm not launching today.
Thats to say, knowelgde is more the method more than thing than 'results'. The perponderance of evidence in methods, results & experience in determining something's reliable/knowledge. Bible seems to say as much 1Thes 5:21, Sirach 6: 6-14-ish.
More so in that knowledge develops. We thought we knew atoms were the smallest bit of matter or the nature of gravity.
I thought I knew myself & truth at 16, 18, 21...even parents get smarter
"Knowledge", from Faith to physics can always deepen.
The only sure Knowledge is that if I'm always sure I'm right, I'll never learn, or not much.
God show this best. Even the truth God is Love is an truth but also an infinite reality, that can deepen but never be fully finished.
The physical &philosophical world like everything else, by design & nature, resemble its Creator.
The product is part of the process, the product is in a sense the process.
Knowledge is as much the Honest, humble pursuit as what the pursuit arrives at, this time.
Or maybe I misunderstood Matt's whole idea.
I've wondered if Huemer's phenomenal conservatism would be helpful here. I don't have a fully fleshed-out argument for this.
But maybe I'm still justified in believing it's 2pm since I'm unaware of the clock being broken and I arrived to my next appointment on time or whatever else followed after.
In other words, I'm justified in believing it's 2pm in the absence of defeaters; I don't know the clock is broken.
100% Cartesian epistemology might say, “don’t accept unless certain” PC says “if something seems the case, accept until given good reason to doubt.” It’s the ordinary way every one other than academics has lived and experienced the world at all times forever.
Just one more reason not to be Cartesian. I think it was Thomas Reid who said something like, "Descartes, why didn't you doubt your rational faculties when you landed on the cogito?" Paraphrasing of course ha, but I always got a kick out of that.
It is worth reading Esther Meek's "Loving to Know" on this topic.
Have you checked out David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity? I believe he also considers himself a fallibist.