Epistemology: How We Learn

Epistemology (definition) is closely tied to metaphysics, as metaphysics discusses what is, and epistemology discusses how we know what is. It is the attempt to answer the question ‘what is the best way to learn?’ There are many answers to this question and not all of them useful. We might learn by withdrawing into ourselves and seeking a spirit guide, or by praying to a deity for answers, or by trying things and seeing what happens. People have tried all kinds of ways to find knowledge and had a wide variety of results.

Of course, a primary trouble with this question is that to evaluate a system of learning, we have to have some standard to evaluate it by. The best way that we can evaluate a system of learning is to see how effectively it conveys a clear and correct understanding of the world. Unfortunately, we must have a way to learn about the world in order to know what a clear and correct understanding of the world would look like.

This problem is fundamentally unsolvable, in much the same way that the problem of metaphysics is unsolvable. If we define a system of epistemology and follow it to an understanding of the world, then, according to that picture of the world, that form of epistemology leads to the clearest understanding of that picture. It is only when we allow some outside influence, a different system of learning, to affect our thinking that we can reach a different picture of the world.

For instance, let us say that the best way to learn about the universe is to read a book written by some people considered wise a few thousand years ago. Let’s say that this leads us to believe that if we are ill, we can be cured by beseeching an ultimate power of the universe with a few whispers. If we were then to consider the scientific method of trial and error, we would find it lacking. By the standard of science, we would test this hypothesis and see if such requests to a higher being actually resulted in cured illness. This has been done, and there is no correlation between prayer and recovery.^{1 2} Given this, we might conclude that beseeching an ultimate power is not a good way to cure illness.

Now here is the rub, if a person holds that reading this ancient text is really the best way of gaining a clear picture of the world, then we must conclude that science has made a mistake in saying that prayer doesn’t cure illness. Given that science has made an attempt to gain a clear view of the world, and has come to the wrong conclusions, science must not be a very good way of learning about the world. Contrarily, if a person holds that looking at what happens in the world around you is the best way to learn about the world, then you must conclude that the ancient text made a mistake and that reading that text is not the best way to learn about the world. Each method of epistemology is self supporting, and thus, no method can be tested against another, and we can never truly know what method, if any, provides a clear picture of reality, even if reality is objective as we have allowed.

Fortunately this issue, though as ultimately unsolvable as that of metaphysics, can be essentially resolved the same way. Remember with me again that a being can only be affected insomuch as it experiences that affect. Extending this thought, we see that a system of epistemology provides a clear and accurate picture of the world, only in as much as that view reflects the experiences we have while existing in it. Thus, if a method of learning leads us to a conclusion which is directly at odds with what we have seen, heard, and experienced to be true, then that method must have made a mistake.

Science is the best way we as a species have found to come to a picture of the world which accurately reflects our experiences. This is because science is founded on observing, recording, and reasoning from what we experience of the world. No other method has even come close to the amazing power of science to reveal the universe to the human mind. Some people will argue that science makes mistakes, that it has made many mistakes, and freely admits as much. These people have entirely missed the point. I am not saying that science is infallible; indeed much of what we hold to be true is probably inaccurate in some way. What I am saying is that no one has ever presented any alterative that makes fewer mistakes, that continually improves on itself and purges itself of error, and which leads to a clear understanding of the experience of our existence as well as science does. Not even close.

 So, while science is not perfect, it is the best we have, and if you turn your back on the best available source of knowledge available to you, you abandon knowledge, and thus your ability to reason about the world, and thus you despise your own intelligence and all that makes you more than a talking monkey. Those who question the conclusions of science, and use science to further refine those conclusions actively seek true understanding. Those who refuse the conclusions of science out of hand are willfully ignorant, and choose to limit their own intelligence. I seek truth, here and in all places, and in all times. I am a scientist, an empiricist, and a rational being. I cannot advocate other than science and reason as an adequate epistemology.