1. The document discusses epistemology, which is the study of how we know what we know. It aims to accomplish goals like knowing how we know things and distinguishing what is knowable from what isn't.
2. However, the writings on epistemology present various theories for how these goals can be achieved but admit that the theories themselves are not known to be true. They provide counterarguments and counter-counterarguments without helping the reader know anything conclusively.
3. The document argues that we can accomplish the goals of epistemology by figuring out what is necessarily known through reason alone and refusing to engage with those who deny epistemic necessity or are too obstinate to admit it.
1. The document discusses epistemology, which is the study of how we know what we know. It aims to accomplish goals like knowing how we know things and distinguishing what is knowable from what isn't.
2. However, the writings on epistemology present various theories for how these goals can be achieved but admit that the theories themselves are not known to be true. They provide counterarguments and counter-counterarguments without helping the reader know anything conclusively.
3. The document argues that we can accomplish the goals of epistemology by figuring out what is necessarily known through reason alone and refusing to engage with those who deny epistemic necessity or are too obstinate to admit it.
1. The document discusses epistemology, which is the study of how we know what we know. It aims to accomplish goals like knowing how we know things and distinguishing what is knowable from what isn't.
2. However, the writings on epistemology present various theories for how these goals can be achieved but admit that the theories themselves are not known to be true. They provide counterarguments and counter-counterarguments without helping the reader know anything conclusively.
3. The document argues that we can accomplish the goals of epistemology by figuring out what is necessarily known through reason alone and refusing to engage with those who deny epistemic necessity or are too obstinate to admit it.
1. The document discusses epistemology, which is the study of how we know what we know. It aims to accomplish goals like knowing how we know things and distinguishing what is knowable from what isn't.
2. However, the writings on epistemology present various theories for how these goals can be achieved but admit that the theories themselves are not known to be true. They provide counterarguments and counter-counterarguments without helping the reader know anything conclusively.
3. The document argues that we can accomplish the goals of epistemology by figuring out what is necessarily known through reason alone and refusing to engage with those who deny epistemic necessity or are too obstinate to admit it.
Epistemology for Dummies http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/epi4dum.
html
EPISTEMOLOGY for DUMMIES
Epistemology doesnʹt help us know much more than we would
have known if we had never heard of it. But it does force us to Essays admit that we donʹt know some of the things we thought we knew. We study epistemology to accomplish at least five goals: Open as PDF 1. to know how we know stuff 2. to know if other people really know what they claim to Open know Concept Clarifier 3. to distinguish what is knowable from what isnʹt in 4. to formulate an epistemological foundation that wonʹt separate window collapse when we try to build on it 5. to respond to the skeptics who keep asking, ʺHow do you know that?ʺ and to incorrigible agnostics who claim to know li�le if anything 6. and possibly a few other related goals not specifically stated above
Unfortunately the people who write on epistemology donʹt tell
us how to accomplish those goals. They give us a bunch of theories on how some of those goals might be accomplished. But by admi�ing that those theories are theories, the writers admit that they donʹt know if those theories are true. In fact, they present us with counter arguments to those theories, and counter- counter arguments for as long as we are willing to continue reading. Thus, they donʹt help us know anything, except that we just wasted some time. They do, however, help the epistemological in-crowd to sound knowledgeable among themselves, and talk over the heads of anyone who doesnʹt - which was very likely the whole idea.
Is there a way to accomplish our original goals without joining
in the fray and becoming part of the problem? Yes. Not ʺyes, in my opinionʺ, or ʺhereʹs the yes theory,ʺ but flat unequivocal yes. We can simply figure out what is epistemically necessary, admit that we know what is epistemically necessary, and refuse to care about those people who are either too stupid to see epistemic necessity, or too obnoxious to admit they see it.