Types of Epistemology

Epistemology
The term “epistemology” comes from the Greek words “episteme” and “logos”. “Episteme” may be
translated as “knowledge” or “understanding” or “acquaintance”, while “logos” will be translated as
“account” or “argument” or “reason”. even as each of those different translations captures some facet of
the meaning of those Greek terms, so too does each translation capture a unique facet of epistemology
itself. Although the term “epistemology” isn't any quite a pair of centuries old, the sphere of epistemology
is a minimum of as old as any in philosophy.[1] in numerous parts of its extensive history, different facets
of epistemology have attracted attention. Plato’s philosophy was a trial to know what it had been to
grasp, and also the manner data (unlike mere true opinion) is good for the knower. Locke’s epistemology
was an effort to grasp the operations of human understanding, Kant’s epistemology was an effort to
understand the conditions of the possibility of human understanding, and Russell’s epistemology was a
trial to grasp however fashionable science could be even by attractiveness to sensory experience. a lot
of recent add formal epistemology may be a shot to grasp how our degrees of confidence are
rationally strained by our evidence, and much recent add feminist epistemology is a trial to
understand the ways that} throughout which interests have an effect on our evidence, and affect our
rational constraints a lot of generally. altogether these cases, philosophy seeks to know one or another
quite psychological feature success (or, correspondingly, cognitive failure). This entry surveys the types
of cognitive success, and a couple of recent efforts to grasp variety of these varieties.
Types of Epistemology
Since folks are pondering what information is for thus long, the kinds of philosophy are nearly infinite.
Here may be a list of a number of the additional common types within the Western tradition:
 Foundationalism: all knowledge is constructed on the idea of a number of axioms, or

statements willnot|that can't} be doubted. For example, pure mathematics relies on a few axioms like
“two points verify a line” and “parallel lines ne'er intersect.” On the basis of those statements,
geometricians can derive all styles of mathematical truths.
o Pros: foundationalism is extraordinarily precise. It attracts a transparent line
between what's knowledge and what isn’t. As long because the axioms are true and therefore
the logic is sound, we are able to be one hundred pc positive of our information.
o Cons: you've got to own a great deal of confidence in your axioms! If only 1 axiom seems to
be false, then all you knowledge can return crashing. this is often alittle risk in a {very}bstract
fields like geometry, however once you begin talking regarding the important world, things
get untidy in a hurry, so it gets very tough to form reliable axioms for foundationalism.
 Coherentism: knowledge is true as long because it isn’t self-contradictory. you'll believe no

matter you want, and as long as it’s per itself, it counts as information.
o Pros: coherentism is flexible. as a result of it isn’t supported axioms, you don’t ought
to be utterly welded to any specific claims — if one thing seems to be
false, you'll simply throw it out and therefore the remainder of your
knowledge remains sound
o Cons: coherentism makes it onerous to evaluate different people’s views as “false.” For
example, what if somebody aforesaid that unicorns are real, and that they go on Mars? this is
often a fairly ridiculous claim, however it’s not a self-contradiction! And, on the idea of
coherentism, it might be very tough to disprove. therefore coherentism would
possibly be too flexible.
 Pragmatism: if it works, it’s true. ideas are simply tools that groups of people use to induce by in a
{very} world that we'll ne'er absolutely understand. If the tools work well for his or her purpose
and facilitate us live sensible lives, then they’re true. If not, they’re false. Pragmatism doesn’t draw a
black-and-white line between true and false, however permits for a gray space wherever one
thing is kind-of true and kind-of false. That’s either a professional or a con, looking on your
perspective.
o Pros: avoids the issues of each foundationalism and coherentism. Also, pragmatists realize
that associate degreed kin|masses|men|mortals|people at large|people in general|persons|
groups of people|individuals|personalities} have limits, and our information is
usually changing.
o Cons: onerous to outline “what works.” For example, the Greeks had every kind of
incorrect ideas regarding however the universe works, that we’ve since
disproven. however these were the simplest ideas accessible at the time, and that they worked
well in serving to Greek culture thrive. therefore were these ideas right at the time,
but currently they’re wrong? That feels like an odd issue to say, but it's implicit by
pragmatism.
Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address issues related to concepts of right and wrong. It is
sometimes referred to as moral philosophy and can be broadly divided into four subject areas which are as
follows:
 Meta-ethics aims to understand the nature of ethical evaluations, the origin of ethical principles
and the meanings of terms used but is value-free.
 Descriptive ethics involves, for example, determining what proportion of the population or a
certain group considers that something is right or wrong.
 Normative ethics, sometimes referred to as moral theory, focuses on how moral values are
determined, what makes things right or wrong and what should be done.
 Applied ethics examines controversial issues (such as euthanasia, abortion and capital
punishment) and applies ethical theories to real life situations. Applied ethical issues are those
which are clearly moral issues and for which there are significant groups of people who are either
for and against. Often there is no simple answer as to whether something is right or wrong as
ethical issues tend to be multi-faceted. Possible solutions may appeal to some ethical principles
and not others, just as they may benefit certain groups of people and not others.
o medical and nursing ethics (considers moral values and judgements linked to medicine
and nursing)
o bioethics (considers ethical issues which arise in connection with the advances in biology
and medicine) – medical ethics and bioethics are closely linked and there is sometimes
overlap between the two
In their attempt to define ethics, Verlasquez et al. (1987) drew attention to four things that should not be
considered as ethics.
1. They suggest that ethics is not necessarily about acting in accordance with one’s feelings as
sometimes a person’s feelings about a particular issue may lead them to act in a way that is
unethical.
2. Ethics cannot be equated with religion because although most religions advocate and provide
incentives for people to act in an ethical manner, ethics applies to everyone whereas religion is
limited to certain groups of people.
3. Behaving in an ethical manner should not be confused with respecting laws as throughout history
examples can be found of laws which with hindsight were clearly unethical (e.g. linked to
slavery, apartheid and compulsory sterilization of certain groups of people). Even nowadays there
are laws which authorize capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and compulsory
electroconvulsive shock treatment even though large sections of the population are against such
practices.
4. Finally, ethical behaviour cannot be based on “what society accepts” because people’s behaviour
may deviate from what is ethical and societies may condone unethical behaviour (such as
withholding vital medical treatment from certain groups of people or even trying to eliminate
certain groups of people altogether). In this sense, society is understood as state actions or
decisions that are more or less supported or tolerated by citizens. However, whole populations are
seldom if ever all in agreement on ethical issues. If by “society”, the whole population is
intended, then it would be necessary to carry out a survey to find out what they think about each
ethical issue and as people tend to be divided on numerous issues, this would be impractical and
inconclusive.

Types of Epistemology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of Epistemology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of Epistemology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Epistemology

 Foundationalism: all knowledge is constructed on the idea of a number of axioms, or

 Coherentism: knowledge is true as long because it isn’t self-contradictory. you'll believe no

You might also like