Transcript
John Gartside: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today you join us for another exciting episode as we're going to sort of delve again into the realm of philosophy and in and particular epistemology.
Dejan: So for those of you who don't know, epistemology is the area in philosophy that deals with knowledge. It is the study of knowledge. And some of the sort common questions are, what is knowledge?
Dejan: Can you ever be sure, absolutely sure of something and the way we get information, the way we can confirm that information. So it's quite a broad, but as well, very of interesting and contentious topic among the fans of philosophy. So the first question, John, I reckon is what is knowledge?
John Gartside: Yeah. So I think i the concept of knowledge is something that at first sight is fairly difficult sort of define in the sense that one, what is knowledge? It's this sort of all encompassing thing that all humans have.
John Gartside: It's a characteristic of human existence, which I would sort of dilute to an understanding of something. I believe knowledge can be factual.
John Gartside: but also that it can be perhaps spiritual. One can have spiritual knowledge, which isn't based on scientific facts. Or one can have knowledge that's based off reason.
John Gartside: I think of knowledge as this sort of all-encompassing thing, purely based on this idea of it's a human understanding of a concept. Now, that's slightly contentious because
Dejan: I do think that is quite, quite contentious.
John Gartside: many many many philosophers will camp knowledge into the reason park or into the experience park. But I think I've sort of got a slightly more holistic perspective on it. This perhaps isn't the most philosophically sound, but I do think it's for me, it's just this idea of an understanding.
John Gartside: What do you think knowledge is there?
Dejan: Yeah, so I'm more of a sort of traditionalist.
John Gartside: yeah oh yeah
Dejan: when it comes to epistemology and many other philosophical topics, but mainly epistemology. I think knowledge is sort of absolute truth. I don't think you can say truly have knowledge.
Dejan: I think there's the difference between understanding and knowledge because you can understand something and not be right.
Dejan: Because, you know, in your mind, say... sort of a scientific concept like quantum mechanics. You can say, understand quantum mechanics. In your perspective, you do.
Dejan: But if, you know, a professor were to question your honor, you would, you would not get anything right.
John Gartside: yeah
Dejan: You would understand, but but you wouldn't know it. You wouldn't have the knowledge of it. I classify knowledge as sort of absolute truth. As when you're sure of something being the case.
Dejan: And here I am a a rationalist. I don't think it can can come to that conclusion. any other way, apart from through reason. I think it's, you know, the experience sort of pathway for me has got major flaw, which is why does the fact that something happened the past necessarily mean that it's going to happen in the future?
Dejan: You know, the fact that you
Dejan: drank water 50 times before, but but for me, without thinking is not enough for me to guarantee that if the 51st time I drink water, I'm to be fine.
John Gartside: Oh, yeah.
Dejan: You know, don't think you can make that sort of bulletproof argument in that sphere. What do you think?
John Gartside: Yeah, no, I agree with you there. I think reason really is fundamental to it. And for our listeners who don't know, two perhaps sort of most dominant theories in epistemology are rationalism and empiricism.
John Gartside: Rationalism emphasises reason as the primary source of knowledge. So it's logical thinking, this sort of rationalistic approach. It's using the mind to sort of
Dejan: Yeah. Yes.
John Gartside: tackle what knowledge is in a concept.
John Gartside: On the other side, you have empiricism, which lends its name to the concept of empirical evidence. And that's understanding things through our senses, i.e. through experience.
John Gartside: So it's seeing something. And this is associated with scholars such Locke, or David Hume, or or, I mean, a a variety of philosophers, but Hume in particular, he and Mill, they're very big on using empiricism and lots of their major philosophical arguments.
John Gartside: Concerning whether I'm more of an empiricist or rationalist, I think, I always find it hard to say on this because I think there is an empirical statement reality to so many things, such as science.
John Gartside: It's based upon reason, but something can only ever be proved in many ways, I find, if it is empirical, because empirical provides 100% certainty of something.
John Gartside: But I think you can reason can use rationalism to ascertain that something is very highly possible. But until I personally 100% for sure know it is,
John Gartside: I will only say that's true knowledge. And I think you can only say something 100% is 100% true or 100% real if you see it.
Dejan: Well, I...
John Gartside: Such as if I see God, there are rationalistic arguments for God's existence. But if I experience God, I 100% sure without doubt can say, yes, that's a truth, that's knowledge.
John Gartside: What do you think about that, Diane?
Dejan: I highly disagree with that because my views the complete opposite. think you can ever prove something empirically. I think the the empirical will tell you something
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: But but that is not enough. You need your reason, your logic and your mind to be able to sort of digest what an experiment tells you and then come up with a better formulation.
Dejan: And that's, you know, if you do an experiment, the chance of you getting it wrong due to your human error is there.
Dejan: It exists, you know? And If you wouldn't remove an anomalous result, then that skews your entire of operation, you would say.
Dejan: So I think it's the other way around. I think empirical evidence tells us the basics, but without reason, we can't truly get a state of knowledge, famous rationalists, mean, the most famous one is probably René Descartes, really.
Dejan: He was the OG rationalist. And he had very good example, actually. And that was sort of you being tricked visually, which is something that happens, you know, if you've got sort of like reflection indexes or like oases in the desert when you're really thirsty and dehydrated.
John Gartside: you. Yeah.
Dejan: Descartes' main point is things you think you've seen the oasis, or you think that if you put a a pen in water, it's slightly bent. But unless you use your reason in your mind to sort of digest information, and realize that it's not true, you've, ah you've gone to the wrong conclusion.
John Gartside: Thank you.
Dejan: So you've got an understanding, but you don't have knowledge.
John Gartside: Yeah, I see. I definitely see where you're coming from there. And i mean, mean, that's a very famous example is the floating ship of that sort of famous vid picture that was distributed of this optical illusion of a ship looking like it was floating in the sky.
John Gartside: But obviously ships don't float in the sky. It was an optical illusion. But I still find that, for example, the society we live in is highly empiricist.
John Gartside: things like courts of law that obviously function wholly around the idea of empiricism above reason. Even if it's even if there's a high probability that you committed a crime and everyone, including the judge, knows that you committed it without evidence, they will never convict you.
John Gartside: Because sort of going back to my point, evidence can deceive you. know, there can be anomalies. But I think with empirical testing, and especially thorough, varied empirical testing, you can provide an absolute certainty to something.
John Gartside: But I don't think... think it's slightly... I don't think it should be as binary as saying... empiricism or rationalism is not suitable.
John Gartside: Because I do think there's a place for both. And I think, you know, rationalism is essential and you can see it with science. To achieve something scientifically, you almost need rationalism and empiricism.
John Gartside: It needs to make logical sense and also evidence-driven sense. So I don't know if it's, so I don't really entirely think it's as much of a sort of a a binary question as it is.
Dejan: Yeah, I think I'm more, I understand your point.
John Gartside: Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: I think it's an important one.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: But again, for me, I'm quite a sort of hardline rationalist.
John Gartside: yeah
Dejan: For the reasons I mentioned previously, sort of experiences deceiving you and not being able to get to that point of true knowledge, of true wisdom, of knowledge.
Dejan: fact and of a fact that is without a doubt true and real, uh, empirically. I don't think that's possible. I think empiricism is very important the process.
Dejan: I think it's sort of the stepping stone in that you gather the evidence, but even in a court of law, you can have all the evidence in the world.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: If it doesn't make sense together, piece together, you're never going to get convicted.
John Gartside: Yeah.
John Gartside: It's almost a combination, as I said, you sort of got to, yeah.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: It's just about what the first step is and what the sort of final step is.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: And I view the first step as being empiricism and the sort of final level is rationalism as the sort of top and only way to actually get there.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: I think maybe you see it switched around.
John Gartside: Yes, the inverse. Another theory which which is perhaps the third most dominant idea in epistemology, and an idea which is particular sort of applied in a biblical context when sort studying divine texts, is this idea of scepticism.
Dejan: Yes.
John Gartside: which for our listeners who don't know, that sort of doubts whether reliable, complete knowledge is ever possible. It's as the name suggests, being a bit of a sceptic.
Dejan: Yes.
John Gartside: So, Diane, what are your views on this? Are you a sceptic or not?
Dejan: well, I mean, I've, I've dabbled in skepticism, I have to say. Um, but, but no, if I were to classify myself, I classify myself as a rationalist.
Dejan: I see skepticism and understand why it's there. But almost to sort of be a bit ironic, I think empirically skepticism can be disproven because there are some things that simply fact, such as
John Gartside: Yeah. Oh yeah.
Dejan: I, you know, I mean, the famous one is I think, therefore I am.
John Gartside: ah
Dejan: So, so René Descartes, cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am, is probably the best sort of example of rationalism beating skepticism is because
Dejan: Because you're a thinking being, because you think you exist, and because you sort of are aware of your own body, through rationalism you can come to the conclusion that you in fact exist.
Dejan: You might not be sure of anyone. I'm not sure you exist, truly. You know, might be a robot, might be a video game character, I know.
John Gartside: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: But I'm sure I exist. I know that I am not a video game character. I know that not. So if I know that I exist,
Dejan: I think that is a ah ah true piece of information. Sort of scientifically, I think you can also beat the scepticism, but if we're good sceptics. You know, 2 plus 2 is always going to be 4.
Dejan: That is true knowledge. That is a fact beyond this dispute. You can't do an equation that is 2 plus 2 and you get any other result apart from 4. You can't do that.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: It doesn't work. but yeah, you skepticism at some level, I think is useful. Uh, you know, being a bit, a bit skeptic and a bit, not easy, but easily persuaded suddenly subscribe to something or believe something or take something as fact without employing your rational mind and your, your own thinking power, I think is a good trait, but being a skeptic, the sort of philosophical sense of the word, I don't subscribe to.
John Gartside: Yeah, me too. I actually find skepticism quite cynical in a way.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: And it's because this idea that true knowledge can never exist, it's just sort of, as you said, baseless. There's not really any grounding to it.
John Gartside: And one of the main sort of arguments used by skeptics is infinite regression, which for if you don't know, is this idea of this continual chain of causes.
John Gartside: So a skeptic would say that a justification always leads to another justification. So we are humans because we breathe. Why is that?
John Gartside: Because we have organs. Why is that? And it's just this continual chain that goes on forever.
Dejan: Well, yeah, but I mean...
John Gartside: However, William Lane Craig is the notable mathematician who has disproved it.
Dejan: Number one guy.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: There are so many others who said that this idea of an infinite chain of events or infinite chain of events that goes around the entire universe, that does not exist.
John Gartside: I forgot how to do it, but there's a very simple mathematical sort of phrase and sentence, which easily gets rid of the problem. And in reality, most things in the world have a finite past, have a finite cause.
John Gartside: Humans breathe because why? Because that's just the way we're born.
Dejan: I mean, you know, I think what is two plus two?
John Gartside: Yeah.
John Gartside: Thought.
Dejan: Why?
John Gartside: Two. Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: Therefore,
John Gartside: Four. Yeah.
Dejan: I mean, can't really argue with that.
John Gartside: It's a simple sort thing.
Dejan: Can't really say why to that.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: no, I think if in a regression, It just doesn't work. I mean, mathematically doesn't work.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: Logically doesn't really work.
John Gartside: Right.
Dejan: I think I think where they're coming from, though, I see where they're coming from.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: It's it's an interesting and a sort of good angle to take. um that that is sort of if we look at the big sort of macrosphere, then yeah, OK, why do we exist?
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: And you sort of go into that, then you might get to an infinite regression, but with most with questions, you're never going to put in the position of having to sort ask why, why, why, why more than five or six or seven times or eight times.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: I mean, you know.
John Gartside: Yeah. There's the underlying all. There's eventually an answer.
Dejan: Indeed.
John Gartside: So we hope you've enjoyed today's episode. We've just had a quick sort of dive into epistemology, which, as we've mentioned throughout, is the study of knowledge. What we know, what we don't know, and how we know it, whether that's rationalism, something that Diane's a very big fan of, empiricism, or in fact, if one is a skeptic and doesn't believe they know anything at all.
John Gartside: So we hope you've enjoyed listening. Please do rate the podcast five stars, follow us, follow us on social media and show us any support you can.
Dejan: See you next week.
John Gartside: See you then.
