Quarter 1 – Module 2.

1
Methods of Philosophizing
 “Welcome to
the province of
epistemology!”

Knowledge and
Truth
WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?
 “Epistemology is a science devoted to the
discovery of the proper method of acquiring and
validating knowledge” (Rand 1990).

The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:

1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the
knowledge we acquired is really knowledge (i.e., true).
 THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

 Knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either by

perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on
perceptual observation” (Rand 1990).

When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend,

the movement of the planets, or the origin of civilizations)
you understand its nature. You identify what it is. And it stays
with you.

 Knowledge is a retained form of awareness (Binswanger

2014).
So how do we acquire knowledge?
1. Senses
-First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses:
seeing,
hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling.
How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it.
How do you know that fire is hot? Because you feel it.

-This method of acquiring knowledge is called empiricism and

it has many adherents in the history of philosophy such as
John Locke, George Berkley, David Hume.
The Empiricists (From left to right) John Locke, David Hume
and George Berkly
2. Thinking
-Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use
of our minds (what philosophers call the rational faculty).
This is what rationalism advocates.

The Rationalist (From left to right) Rene Descartes, Baruch

Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
 However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact
the second half). The reason is that thinking involves content.
To think is to think of something. You cannot think about
nothing. This is where sense perception enters the picture by
feeding our mind with data coming from the outside world so
that we can have something to think about.
 ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
First part of epistemology: the process of acquiring
knowledge.
1.Reality
 To know is to know something. This “something” is what
philosophers call reality, existence, being.
 Existence is everything, there is (another name for it is the
Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes everything we perceive
(animals, plant, human beings, inanimate objects) and everything
inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) which
represents our inner world.
-Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exist knowledge is
impossible.
2. Perception
 Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses.
Knowledge begins with perceptual knowledge. At first the
senses give us knowledge of things or entities (what Aristotle
calls primary substance): dog, cat, chair, table, man.
 Later we became aware not only of things but certain aspects
of things like: qualities (blue, hard, smooth), quantities
(seven inches or six pounds), relationships (in front of, son of)
even actions (jumping, running, flying). These so called
Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the entities
that have it.
Red for example cannot be separated from red objects; walking
cannot be separated from the person that walks etc.
 3. Concept
 After we perceive things we began to notice that some of the
things we perceive are similar to other things.
For example we see three individuals, let’s call them Juan, Pablo
and Pedro who may have nothing in common at first glance. But
when we compare them with another entity, a dog for example,
suddenly their differences become insignificant. Their big
difference to a dog highlights their similarity to one another
(Binswanger 2014).
We therefore grouped them into one class or group, named the
group (“man” or “human being”) and define what that group is, to
give it identity (Peikoff 1990). We now have a concept which
according to one dictionary means “an abstract or generic idea
generalized from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary).
 The first concepts we formed are concepts of things like dog, cat,
man, house, car. These elementary concepts are called first level
concepts (Rand 1990). From these first level concepts we can
form higher level concepts through a process which Rand calls
“abstraction from abstractions” (Rand1990).

Two types of abstraction from

abstractions:
a. Wider generalization (Widening) is the process of forming
wider and wider concepts.
For example from Juan, Pedro and Pablo we can form the concept
“man”. Then from man, dog, cat, monkey we can form a higher and
wider concept “animal”. And from plant and animal we can form a still
higher and wider concept “living organism”.
As we go up to these, progressive widenings our knowledge increases.
 b. Subdivisions (Narrowing) consist of identifying finer and
finer distinctions.
For example “man” is a first level concept that we can
subdivide according to profession (doctor, entertainer,
fireman, teacher), or race (Asian, Caucasian [white], black), or
gender (man, woman, lesbian, gay), or nationality (Filipino,
Chinese, American) among other things.
As we go down, these progressive narrowing our knowledge of
things subsumed under a concept increases.
• The result of this progressive widenings and narrowing is a
hierarchy (or levels) of concepts whose based is sense perception.
As we move further from the perceptual base knowledge becomes
more abstract and as we move closer to the perceptual level
knowledge becomes more concrete.
 4. Proposition
 When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an
“existent” (a particular that exist be it an object, a person, an
action or event, etc.) (Rand 1990) we use what philosophers
call a proposition (Binswanger 2014). A proposition is a
statement that expresses either an assertion or a denial
(Copi, 2002) that an existent belongs to a class or possess
certain attribute.
 Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence.
When I say, for example, that “Men are mortals” I am making
an assertion of men which are affirmative in nature (thus the
statement is an affirmative proposition). When I make an
opposite claim however, “Men are not mortals” I am denying
something about men and thus my statement is negative in
nature(thus the proposition is called a negative proposition).
 An affirmative proposition therefore has the following
structure:
“S is P” (where S is the subject, P is the predicate and “is”
is the copula stating the logical relationship of S and P)

While the negative proposition has the

structure:
“S is not P” (“is not” is the copula expressing
denial).
Notice that statements like:
“Men are mortals”,
“Angels are not demons”, and
“Saints are not sinners”
5. Inference
 How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? -By
providing an argument. According to Hurley an argument
“is a group of statements, one or more of which (the
premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reason to
believe one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley 2011).
-To clarify this definition let’s give an example using the
famous Socratic argument:

All men are mortals

Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
  Here we have three related statements (or propositions).
The last statement beginning with the word “therefore” is
what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that
we want to prove. The first two statements are what we call
premises (singular form: premise). A premise provides
justification, evidence, and proof to the conclusion.
 

An argument expresses a reasoning process which

logicians call inference (Hurley 2011). Arguments however is
not the only form of inference but logicians usually used
“argument” and “inference” interchangeably.
 THE NATURE OF TRUTH
This is the second part of epistemology: validating one’s
 Theknowledge.
first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the
following question: “How did I arrive at this belief, by what
steps?” (Binswanger 2014). Thus you have to retrace the steps
you took to acquire the knowledge, “reverse engineer” the
process. This is what Dr. Peikoff calls reduction (Peikoff 1990).
-One will therefore realize that the steps you took to acquire
knowledge (perception-concept-proposition-inference) are the
same steps needed to validate knowledge (but in reverse order).
-Thus what the ancient pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus said is
true when applied to epistemology: “the way up [knowledge
acquisition] is the way down [knowledge validation]” (quoted by
Dr. Binswanger 2014).
  If we perform the process of reduction we will realized that all
true knowledge rest ultimately on sense perception. “A belief is
true if it can be justified or proven through the use of one’s
senses” (Abella 2016). Consider the following statements:
I am alive.
I have a body.
I can breathe.

You can only validate the above statements if you observed

yourself using your senses. Feel your body. Are you breathing? Feel
your pulse. Observe your body. Is it moving? These and countless
examples provided by your senses proved that you’re alive (Abella
2016).
 Not all statements however can be validated directly by the
senses. Some beliefs or ideas need a “multi-step process of
validation called proof’ (Binswanger 2014). Nevertheless proof
rests ultimately on sense perception.
Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we
based our beliefs on such facts our beliefs are true (Abella
2016).
For example the belief that human beings have the right to life
rests
on the following claim:
1. Human beings are rational animals.
2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms.
And of course the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated
perceptually as shown above.
 A third way to determine if the statement is true is
through a consensus (Abella 2016). If the majority
agrees that a statement is true then it is true.
However there are certain limitations to this
approach.
 A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true
is to test it by means of action (Abella 2016).
-For example you want to know if a person is friendly. Well
the best way to find out is to approach the person. Thus
the famous Nike injunction of “Just do it” is applicable in
this situation.
 Domains of Truth
• Objective Domain-this pertains to the natural world that
maintains a relative independence from the perspective and
attitude of human beings that perceive them. Scientific
truth are covered by the objective domain.
Example: Water’s boiling point is 100˚C.

• Social Domain- “truth” is analogous with (not the exact

equivalent) of a general agreement or consensus on what is
right as opposed to what is wrong.
Example: In some religions, it is okay to have multiple
partners or polygamy. But in some, they teach to only have one
partner or monogamy.
 Nevertheless, we have to be constantly aware that these
truths are “created” or constructed by people. As such they can
be changed through a critical examination and deliberation
among the members of a community.

• Personal Domain- truth analogous with sincerity. The

truths that we claim in this domain need corresponding
actions that will established trust.
Example: When someone tells you “I am telling you the
truth.
TRUTH VS. OPINION

TRUTH OPINION
1. Based on the facts of 1. Based on emotions
reality 2. Open to interpretation
2. Can be confirmed with 3. Cannot be confirmed
other sources
3. Independent of one’s 4. Inherently biased
interpretation, preferences
and biases
 For example:
-Religious people strongly believed that there is life after
death.
-Some people who embraced democracy may passionately
embraced the idea that the majority is always right.
However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with
truth. Truth is knowledge validated and when we say
validated we mean they are based on the facts of reality.

-Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived

-Jose Rizal died in 1896
Theories of Truth
1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth:
“It is raining outside”
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:
 The sidewalk is
wet.
Grandma’s knees are aching.
The rain gutters are overflowing.

It is raining outside.
The sky is cloudy and gray.
Pattering can be
heard on the roof.
People are wearing raincoats.

Lightning is flashing, thunder is crashing.

Consequently, by using this method, we establish that the
statement “coheres” with the larger system. In a sense, the
Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since
both evaluates statements based on their agreement with reality.
The difference lies in the method where the former involves a
larger system while the latter relies on a single evidence of fact.
 3. The Pragmatist Theory of
Truth:

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is

true if it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it
does not, then it is not true. In addition, we can know whether a
belief/statement is true by examining the consequence of holding
or accepting the statement/belief to be true. For example, there
are some people who think that there are “ghosts” or “vampires”
because they find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and
in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use
the word “truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.
 “It is raining outside, so I
should protect my suave new
hairdo.”
Therefore,
 The correspondence theory of truth
“is that true statements [or
propositions] are true in virtue of their
matching up with or corresponding to
the way things actually are in reality.”

 Coherence theory of truth, a

proposition is true if and only if it coheres
with the set of beliefs that a person holds.

 The pragmatic theory of truth is

simply defined as being “truth that
works.”