Welcome to the start of a new blog series: How do we know? This is a series that I have been aiming to get started for some time now. The primary goal is to look deeper into the topic of epistemology; the domain of philosophy that explores what knowledge actually is, how we can best approach it, and some of the many challenges that this path imposes. It aims to describe my exploration of this field as I look into the different lines of enquiry that many great thinkers have taken to try and answer some of these hardest of questions:
- What actually is knowledge?
- How can we be sure what we know?
- How can we trust our perceptions?
- What are the common challenges that we face?
Why this topic?
Now some of you may be wondering how this topic came up as one that I would want to devote a full blog series to. I will set the scene by stating that I’m sure that I am not the only one who has noticed a degree of ‘flexibility’ with what is deemed to be true in certain current conversations. Whilst one might argue that this has always been a societal challenge, there are undeniable trends towards misinformation and deception on the big social media platforms at the moment. Indeed, as I pen this, the chief malefactor in this domain, a certain Mr Trump, continues to spout ‘facts’ (usually in a fully capitalised tweet) that bear no resemblance to any sort of reality as we might usually picture it. And whilst it is now clear he will not continue to be the president of the USA, the number of votes that he obtained (both now and in 2016) clearly show that his (apparently very blatant) disregard for the truth isn’t really a barrier for holding what is perhaps the most powerful role in the modern world. And yet he would seem to simply be an epitome of the challenge rather than the entirety of it. Brexit is another delightful example of how a blatant disregard of facts, and a manipulation of the way truth is portrayed, can present major democratic challenges. Even the veracity of covid-19’s existence seems to be something that people are allowed an ‘opinion’ on, far from being the death knell of the anti-vaxxer movement that such an event may have been (an effective vaccine would seem to be the most likely way out of this unending cycle of lockdowns, but how would that work in a time of disbelief in the disease or the safety of a cure?).
As such, I find myself watching the news or scrolling my Twitter feed, increasingly perplexed by the complete lack of a shared worldview. Indeed, there doesn’t even appear to be a shared narrative of enquiry. There isn’t a dialectic, working towards a better understanding of the truth, but simply a drive to ‘win’ the argument - to be right, and to be proud that you believe what you believe (even better if it is in capitalised tweet format). I feel that we have long known that we, as a species, are particularly susceptible to such problems. We love combining pattern recognition with tribal urges to construct our worlds: filling our lives with superstitions and religions, as well as some more useful fabrications such as countries and money. The way that social media has, through its deliberate design, amplified and honed these tendencies has led to some worrying trends. If the popular discourse on the recent key topics is anything to go by, we are increasingly divided and talking past each other. As such, it seems like this is an important time to take stock of the way that we can better understand the nature of these problems, and thereby work out better ways to talk about them. As someone who has found it to be interesting to think about how we know what the best thing to do is in medical practice, this seemed like a great way to delve into the basics of what might underpin the very nature of our approach.
As such, I find myself watching the news or scrolling my Twitter feed, increasingly perplexed by the complete lack of a shared worldview. Indeed, there doesn’t even appear to be a shared narrative of enquiry. There isn’t a dialectic, working towards a better understanding of the truth, but simply a drive to ‘win’ the argument - to be right, and to be proud that you believe what you believe (even better if it is in capitalised tweet format). I feel that we have long known that we, as a species, are particularly susceptible to such problems. We love combining pattern recognition with tribal urges to construct our worlds: filling our lives with superstitions and religions, as well as some more useful fabrications such as countries and money. The way that social media has, through its deliberate design, amplified and honed these tendencies has led to some worrying trends. If the popular discourse on the recent key topics is anything to go by, we are increasingly divided and talking past each other. As such, it seems like this is an important time to take stock of the way that we can better understand the nature of these problems, and thereby work out better ways to talk about them. As someone who has found it to be interesting to think about how we know what the best thing to do is in medical practice, this seemed like a great way to delve into the basics of what might underpin the very nature of our approach.
What's the plan?
I would like to use this blog series as an opportunity to work through my thinking of these topics, doing my best to understand them, and potentially even trigger deeper discussion. It will hopefully also serve as a useful reference point for different resources (websites, videos, podcasts), which I hope others can find a similar benefit from.
I hope to cover some of the major questions in epistemology:
These are the key questions that I wish to answer at this time, but I am sure that there will be more that arise during my ongoing exploration. I wish to end this initial post with an upfront confession: I am not actually a philosopher! And whilst I have enjoyed the exploration of the scientific literature that accompanies medical training, I do not have much in the way of formal research training either. As such, I will apologise for any amateur errors or mistakes that the eagle-eyed amongst you will no doubt be able to detect as I venture into this domain. A major goal of this writing is my own education, but learning as I go along almost certainly means that I will be making mistakes as I document the process. Indeed, it is probably the iterative nature of the electronic format that has most helped me with the construction of the different domains of knowledge that I have visited over time. I hope you find this approach similarly useful, and I am always keen to hear any feedback that you might have. I hope you enjoy the series.
BW
Tom
I hope to cover some of the major questions in epistemology:
- What actually is knowledge? How do we define it and what impact does this definition have on our common appreciation of it?
- What are Gettier cases, and how does this influence our thinking of what we might think of as knowledge?
- What problems arise from our trust in our senses and in other people’s testimony? What degree of skepticism can we reasonably expect to end up with?
- What is science and how does the scientific method help with some of the problems that we have unearthed?
- What does Popper’s take on falsifiability mean for our ability to establish a worldview?
- What does Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts mean for the scientific method, and how can it help us?
- How might all of this apply to evidence based medical practice?
These are the key questions that I wish to answer at this time, but I am sure that there will be more that arise during my ongoing exploration. I wish to end this initial post with an upfront confession: I am not actually a philosopher! And whilst I have enjoyed the exploration of the scientific literature that accompanies medical training, I do not have much in the way of formal research training either. As such, I will apologise for any amateur errors or mistakes that the eagle-eyed amongst you will no doubt be able to detect as I venture into this domain. A major goal of this writing is my own education, but learning as I go along almost certainly means that I will be making mistakes as I document the process. Indeed, it is probably the iterative nature of the electronic format that has most helped me with the construction of the different domains of knowledge that I have visited over time. I hope you find this approach similarly useful, and I am always keen to hear any feedback that you might have. I hope you enjoy the series.
BW
Tom
Links & References
- Epistemology. The Basics of Philosophy. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html
- Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
- Wireless Philosophy. Philosophy - Epistemology. Youtube. 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Y3utIeTPg&list=PLtKNX4SfKpzUxuye9OdaRfL5fbpGa3bH5&index=1
- The Social Dilemma. Netflix. 2020
RSS Feed
