noun epis·te·mol·o·gy i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē
Popularity: Top 20% of words
Definition of epistemology
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
= = = =
imho, this is one of the more crucial issues of life, mind, consciousness . . . reality.
I don't aim to write a major summary of the issues but, instead, to kind of poke at some of the more prickly aspects that routinely rear their head
It is difficult for me to recall a time of my life, an age, when I did not think hard about what I knew and how I knew it. Just been weird that way,
There are TWO BASIC WAYS OF KNOWING:
1. The GREEK method of dissecting something into tinier and tinier portions until the portion is no longer divisible. The LHC could be construed at a
kind of ultimate machine to do that in terms of breaking things down to the smallest sub-atomic particles observable in any sense of the word--any
sense of the word that still makes . . . uhhh . . . sense.
2. The HEBREW method of immersion, merging, experiencing as thoroughly as possible in order to KNOW something. Adam was said to KNOW Even--i.e. via
merging in sexual intercourse.
I don't of any wives who'd prefer their hubby's KNEW them primarily by the dissection, GREEK method.
Though, certainly, the "scientific method" arising out of the Greek method has served us well IN SOME
My Dissertation used both methods to poke at my subject. I still have a strong bias that using both methods is the BEST strategy to know something,
learn truth, etc.
Certainly some topics lend themselves more to one strategy over the other.
Intangible things like "Love" are more likely better learned in most respects via the HEBREW method.
The composition of a metal artifact or a glaze composition from an archeological dig would likely be better arrived at via the Greek method.
Nevertheless, even in the latter two cases--much is added to the technological listing of the percentages of specific ingredients when one adds the
phenomenological data from:
--Where was the artifact found?
--What were the other artifacts found nearby?
--What position was the artifact in relationship to the human bones found in the dig?
--What other examples of similar artifacts were found in the area; in the region; on the continent; around the world?
--What is the likely age of the artifact?
--How was the artifact made?
--Was the artifact likely made by the group it was found among or was it imported from another region/group?
--What were the social structures of the group making and/or using the artifact?
--What were the likely uses of the artifact from utilitarian to ceremonial?
--How costly in terms of hours or days of labor was the artifact--in that culture at that time?
--How many similar artifacts were found?
--How large in population was the human group involved?
--Did every member of the group seem to have such an artifact or only the elite or a specific worker class or group in the tribal group--e.g. a
blacksmith and a blacksmith hammer? Or e.g. did every male have a sword or only military types?
--How often was such an artifact ceremonially buried with a body?
--What kind of symbol of wealth was the artifact?
--How likely was the artifact used to barter for other artifacts?
Certainly the percentages of iron, nickel, carbon etc. in a sword are keenly important and of interest. They relate to hardness, sharpness etc. Yet,
answers to the above questions give a much more robust experience, understanding, KNOWLEDGE
of the swords involved with a given group.
Sadly, on ATS and in much of Western culture, the GREEK method of KNOWING is the only one very respected by far too many of the
purportedly educated folks concerned.
I consider that a major evidence of ignorance as well as a major debilitating and ignorance enhancing flaw:
--in our educational processes;
--in our GROUP-THINK mentality so carefully propagated by the oligarchy's massive propaganda lobotomizing efforts the last 100 years.
--in our personal constructions on reality;
--in our personal understandings of our personal identities and realities of the self;
--in our constructions on the contextual realities surrounding us;
--in our constructions on and anticipations toward future potential realities, changes, events, conditions.
There are those COMPULSIVELY CONTRARIAN sorts of folks in our social networks who are SO UTTERLY DRIVEN by their HUGE DEGREE OF
RAD (Attachment Disorder) that they seemingly cannot conceive of any other way of knowing than the purported "scientific" method.
Their biases are sooooo lopsided and extreme in such regards that they virtually shred the 'scientific method' to pieces . . . certainly neutering it
of a great deal of validity because of their very rigid, narrow and ADDICTED-TO-A-FALSE-NEGATIVE-RISK stance
They appear and sound to be utterly 100% persuaded that such a stance is THE MOST SCIENTIFIC when little could be further from the truth.
One of the major revelations of science has been that there HAS TO BE A BALANCE
between the risk of a false negative error vs the risk of a
false positive error IF ONE IS TRULY, HONESTLY, REALISTICALLY SERIOUS ABOUT DISCOVERING TRUTH
Otherwise, fullest amount of TRUTH will simply not be so accurately or reliably discovered.
Yet, the RELIGIOUSLY ADDICTED folks continue to bow, kowtow before and lick the altar of the pseudo-'science' of being married to dogmatic devotion to
an almost exclusive risk of a false negative error in their allergic terror of a false positive error.
Yet they insist in pontificating in tones dripping with purportedly omniscient haughtiness as though THEY ALONE had a corner on all knowledge, all
reality, all constructions on reality.
What a great example that is of the blind leading the blind.
As a sociologist and psychologist, it is fascinating that such folks seem to ALSO be addicted to a RELIGIOUS FERVOR ADHERENCE TO the "Religion of
Scientism" and tend to function as the upper elite hierarchy of the priestly class in said Religion of Scientism.
It does not seem to matter to them that dozens of examples of their being THOROUGHLY WRONG
in major 'scientific' stances, pronouncements,
understandings the last 200+ years have repeatedly made such 'scientists' look absurdly silly and ignorant. They continue stridently prancing about
with the same tunnel vision, same rigid narrowness of view and conviction that rendered their predecessors also terminally WRONG on such a long list
The trap of being wedded almost exclusively to an addiction to risking only a false negative has struck again and again and again.
And still they won't give up that extremely flawed way of KNOWING, discovering truth.
edit on 2/8/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)