Epistemology Notes
Key terms:
Epistemic – of or pertaining to knowledge, rationality, justification.
Epistemology – the study of knowledge, rationality, justification.
Epistemological – of or pertaining to the study of knowledge, rationality, justification.
Doxastic – of or pertaining to matters of belief
Alethic – of or pertaining to truth.
Classical Epistemology:
- This focuses on the nature of knowledge and the individual’s experience of doubt and
uncertainty. This branch of epistemology asks questions such as: How can we know?; How do we
justify beliefs; How can we trust our sensory perceptions?
- This is primarily concerned with how an individual can trust their own experiences, or sensory
perceptions
- One example of classical epistemology is Descartes’ Meditations, where Descartes arrives at a
state of epistemic despair: if my sensory perceptions are a fallible source of knowledge – and it
seems like they really are fallible – then the rational implication seems to be rational scepticism
i.e. the view that I don’t know anything and that knowledge is impossible. Here, the focus is on
the individual is on the individual and their journey to certainty, often in isolation
Social Epistemology:
- This focuses less on an individual’s experience, and more on how knowledge is shaped by social
interactions and contexts. It explores how beliefs are influenced by social structures and cultural
factors. This branch of epistemology asks questions such as: How does social interaction
influence what we come to know?; Whose testimony should we trust?
- This is primarily concerned with how individuals rely on others for knowledge and how
knowledge is influenced by the social environment
- On example of social epistemology is peer disagreement – when intelligent people disagree with
you, should you remain confident in your views or adopt agnosticism? This illustrates how social
disagreement may affect individual knowledge. Here, the focus is on collective knowledge and
how it is shaped by social interactions
- Social epistemology questions how knowledge may be affected by social factors, for example
power dynamics, biases and expertise
, Differences Classical Social
Focus Individual knowledge and Social and collective aspects of
individual reasoning knowledge formation and focus
on how social groups and
cultural factors shape
knowledge
Epistemic issues E.g. Doubt about sensory E.g. doubt about testimony and
perceptions expertise
Practical Relevance Highly abstract and theoretical – Directly connected to practical,
often appears disconnected real-world issues and informs
from the practical issues in how we engage with knowledge
everyday life in the public sphere, particularly
in a society that faces issues like
misinformation and polarised
beliefs
John Hardwig: Epistemic Dependence
Hardwig states: “I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not possess evidence”; this
personal reflection suggests that humans often possess a vast number of beliefs that are not individually
verified. This raises the question about rationality and the grounds upon which our beliefs are justified
- Hardwig questions the notion that lack of personal evidence leads to irrationality, implying that
belief can be justified on other grounds
Epistemic Dependence: the idea that it is rational for one individual (a layperson) to rely on the
knowledge and expertise of another individual (an expert) to form beliefs.
Hardwig states: “If, then, layman B (1) has not performed the inquiry that would provide the evidence for
his belief that p, (2) is not competent, and perhaps could not even become competent, to perform that
inquiry, (3) is not able to assess the merits of the evidence provided by expert A's inquiry, and (4) may
not even be able to understand the evidence and how it supports A's belief that p, can B nonetheless
have good reasons to believe that A has good reasons to believe that p? I think he can. If so, should we
conclude that B's belief that p is rationally justified? I think we should, acknowledging that B's belief
stands on better epistemic ground than other beliefs which we would call simply irrational or
nonrational”.
- In this extract, Hardwig proposes a scenario where layman, B (a person who lacks professional
knowledge in a particular subject) has a particular belief that a certain proposition, p
- B has not conducted an investigation or inquiry to gather evidence for his belief that p
, - B is not competent and perhaps could not become competent to perform the investigation
required to determine the truth of p, suggesting that B lacks the necessary skills to conduct this
inquiry
- B may also be unable to evaluate and critically engage with the quality of the evidence that
expert, A, has gathered in support of the belief that p, highlighting their lack of expertise
- B may also be unable to grasp the evidence or how it supports A’s belief that p
- This highlights how B is severely limited to engage with the topic
- Nevertheless, Hardwig believes that B can still have good reasons to believe that A has good
reasons for believing that p. This is based on the idea that B can trust A’s expertise. B can rely on
the expertise of A, where B’s belief that p is justified even if B lacks direct evidence or
understanding. Hardwig states that B’s belief stands on “better epistemic ground than other
beliefs which we would call simply irrational or nonrational”, implying that A’s expertise means
that B has a justified belief that p
- Many epistemologists might resist this conclusion because it challenges the traditional idea that
rational belief requires thinking about oneself and personal access to and understanding of
evidence
- Hardwig emphasises that accepting that we have rational grounds for our belief based on the
expertise of others is necessary to avoid an absurd conclusion about knowledge in modern
society
- If we assert that beliefs formed on epistemic dependence are irrational, then we are forced to
conclude that as societies become more complex and knowledgeable, individuals will hold an
increasing number of beliefs that are irrational – simply because these beliefs are grounded in
expert knowledge rather than their own direct evidence/understanding
- This leads to an absurd outcome: the more intellectually advanced a society becomes, the more
irrational its members’ beliefs become. This is “paradoxical” for Hardwig, as we would expect
that a more educated society would promote, not undermine, rational beliefs
Potential Objection to Hardwig:
- Some people may have a strong intuition that in order to be rational, you must exercise
epistemic autonomy – you need to form beliefs based on personal inquiry and reasoning, rather
than accepting what experts say. This view places a great emphasis on self-reliance when
forming beliefs
, - This alternative would require a stricter concept of rationality, meaning that for a belief to be
rational, one has to critically evaluate it themselves instead of relying on the knowledge of
others
- This view is individualistic, and would make you more sceptical about the rationality of many
people’s beliefs, because most people rely on others’ testimony and expertise in everyday life
Hardwig’s Response:
“But I submit that this model provides us with a romantic ideal which is thoroughly unrealistic and
which, in practice, results in less rational belief and judgment. I could, indeed, escape epistemic
dependence on some experts; perhaps, if I am talented enough, I could escape reliance on any given
expert. I can and do choose where to establish my intellectual autonomy. But if I were to pursue
epistemic autonomy across the board, I would succeed only in holding relatively uninformed, unreliable,
crude, untested, and therefore irrational beliefs. If I would be rational, I can never avoid some epistemic
dependence on experts, owing to the fact that I be- lieve more than I can become fully informed about”.
- While Hardwig acknowledges that the idea of epistemic autonomy is a “romantic ideal” or is
appealing, it is unrealistic in practice in his view
- He argues that epistemic autonomy is a problem because it leads to irrationality in practice
- If everyone had to think for themselves, most people would hold beliefs based on weak or
insufficient evidence, as no one can have expertise in all fields
- For example, if you are not a medical practitioner, but are required to think completely
independently about medical concepts, your would likely base your beliefs on very little
evidence as you only have access to your own reasoning or basic sources. Hardwig argues that
this would lead to “crude, untested, and therefore irrational beliefs”
- A society that insists on epistemic autonomy would lead to low-quality evidence for many
beliefs, as people would have to form most of their beliefs without the benefit of expert
testimony – epistemic autonomy is not viable in a world where most knowledge requires
specialisation/expertise
- For Hardwig, epistemic dependence is rational, where he argues that we all believe more than
we can fully understand. For example, you might believe in the principles of physics, but you
don’t need to understand all the intricacies of quantum mechanics in order to accept its truths.
Instead, you rely on the “intellectual authority” of experts in the field who have studied and
tested those theories
Key terms:
Epistemic – of or pertaining to knowledge, rationality, justification.
Epistemology – the study of knowledge, rationality, justification.
Epistemological – of or pertaining to the study of knowledge, rationality, justification.
Doxastic – of or pertaining to matters of belief
Alethic – of or pertaining to truth.
Classical Epistemology:
- This focuses on the nature of knowledge and the individual’s experience of doubt and
uncertainty. This branch of epistemology asks questions such as: How can we know?; How do we
justify beliefs; How can we trust our sensory perceptions?
- This is primarily concerned with how an individual can trust their own experiences, or sensory
perceptions
- One example of classical epistemology is Descartes’ Meditations, where Descartes arrives at a
state of epistemic despair: if my sensory perceptions are a fallible source of knowledge – and it
seems like they really are fallible – then the rational implication seems to be rational scepticism
i.e. the view that I don’t know anything and that knowledge is impossible. Here, the focus is on
the individual is on the individual and their journey to certainty, often in isolation
Social Epistemology:
- This focuses less on an individual’s experience, and more on how knowledge is shaped by social
interactions and contexts. It explores how beliefs are influenced by social structures and cultural
factors. This branch of epistemology asks questions such as: How does social interaction
influence what we come to know?; Whose testimony should we trust?
- This is primarily concerned with how individuals rely on others for knowledge and how
knowledge is influenced by the social environment
- On example of social epistemology is peer disagreement – when intelligent people disagree with
you, should you remain confident in your views or adopt agnosticism? This illustrates how social
disagreement may affect individual knowledge. Here, the focus is on collective knowledge and
how it is shaped by social interactions
- Social epistemology questions how knowledge may be affected by social factors, for example
power dynamics, biases and expertise
, Differences Classical Social
Focus Individual knowledge and Social and collective aspects of
individual reasoning knowledge formation and focus
on how social groups and
cultural factors shape
knowledge
Epistemic issues E.g. Doubt about sensory E.g. doubt about testimony and
perceptions expertise
Practical Relevance Highly abstract and theoretical – Directly connected to practical,
often appears disconnected real-world issues and informs
from the practical issues in how we engage with knowledge
everyday life in the public sphere, particularly
in a society that faces issues like
misinformation and polarised
beliefs
John Hardwig: Epistemic Dependence
Hardwig states: “I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not possess evidence”; this
personal reflection suggests that humans often possess a vast number of beliefs that are not individually
verified. This raises the question about rationality and the grounds upon which our beliefs are justified
- Hardwig questions the notion that lack of personal evidence leads to irrationality, implying that
belief can be justified on other grounds
Epistemic Dependence: the idea that it is rational for one individual (a layperson) to rely on the
knowledge and expertise of another individual (an expert) to form beliefs.
Hardwig states: “If, then, layman B (1) has not performed the inquiry that would provide the evidence for
his belief that p, (2) is not competent, and perhaps could not even become competent, to perform that
inquiry, (3) is not able to assess the merits of the evidence provided by expert A's inquiry, and (4) may
not even be able to understand the evidence and how it supports A's belief that p, can B nonetheless
have good reasons to believe that A has good reasons to believe that p? I think he can. If so, should we
conclude that B's belief that p is rationally justified? I think we should, acknowledging that B's belief
stands on better epistemic ground than other beliefs which we would call simply irrational or
nonrational”.
- In this extract, Hardwig proposes a scenario where layman, B (a person who lacks professional
knowledge in a particular subject) has a particular belief that a certain proposition, p
- B has not conducted an investigation or inquiry to gather evidence for his belief that p
, - B is not competent and perhaps could not become competent to perform the investigation
required to determine the truth of p, suggesting that B lacks the necessary skills to conduct this
inquiry
- B may also be unable to evaluate and critically engage with the quality of the evidence that
expert, A, has gathered in support of the belief that p, highlighting their lack of expertise
- B may also be unable to grasp the evidence or how it supports A’s belief that p
- This highlights how B is severely limited to engage with the topic
- Nevertheless, Hardwig believes that B can still have good reasons to believe that A has good
reasons for believing that p. This is based on the idea that B can trust A’s expertise. B can rely on
the expertise of A, where B’s belief that p is justified even if B lacks direct evidence or
understanding. Hardwig states that B’s belief stands on “better epistemic ground than other
beliefs which we would call simply irrational or nonrational”, implying that A’s expertise means
that B has a justified belief that p
- Many epistemologists might resist this conclusion because it challenges the traditional idea that
rational belief requires thinking about oneself and personal access to and understanding of
evidence
- Hardwig emphasises that accepting that we have rational grounds for our belief based on the
expertise of others is necessary to avoid an absurd conclusion about knowledge in modern
society
- If we assert that beliefs formed on epistemic dependence are irrational, then we are forced to
conclude that as societies become more complex and knowledgeable, individuals will hold an
increasing number of beliefs that are irrational – simply because these beliefs are grounded in
expert knowledge rather than their own direct evidence/understanding
- This leads to an absurd outcome: the more intellectually advanced a society becomes, the more
irrational its members’ beliefs become. This is “paradoxical” for Hardwig, as we would expect
that a more educated society would promote, not undermine, rational beliefs
Potential Objection to Hardwig:
- Some people may have a strong intuition that in order to be rational, you must exercise
epistemic autonomy – you need to form beliefs based on personal inquiry and reasoning, rather
than accepting what experts say. This view places a great emphasis on self-reliance when
forming beliefs
, - This alternative would require a stricter concept of rationality, meaning that for a belief to be
rational, one has to critically evaluate it themselves instead of relying on the knowledge of
others
- This view is individualistic, and would make you more sceptical about the rationality of many
people’s beliefs, because most people rely on others’ testimony and expertise in everyday life
Hardwig’s Response:
“But I submit that this model provides us with a romantic ideal which is thoroughly unrealistic and
which, in practice, results in less rational belief and judgment. I could, indeed, escape epistemic
dependence on some experts; perhaps, if I am talented enough, I could escape reliance on any given
expert. I can and do choose where to establish my intellectual autonomy. But if I were to pursue
epistemic autonomy across the board, I would succeed only in holding relatively uninformed, unreliable,
crude, untested, and therefore irrational beliefs. If I would be rational, I can never avoid some epistemic
dependence on experts, owing to the fact that I be- lieve more than I can become fully informed about”.
- While Hardwig acknowledges that the idea of epistemic autonomy is a “romantic ideal” or is
appealing, it is unrealistic in practice in his view
- He argues that epistemic autonomy is a problem because it leads to irrationality in practice
- If everyone had to think for themselves, most people would hold beliefs based on weak or
insufficient evidence, as no one can have expertise in all fields
- For example, if you are not a medical practitioner, but are required to think completely
independently about medical concepts, your would likely base your beliefs on very little
evidence as you only have access to your own reasoning or basic sources. Hardwig argues that
this would lead to “crude, untested, and therefore irrational beliefs”
- A society that insists on epistemic autonomy would lead to low-quality evidence for many
beliefs, as people would have to form most of their beliefs without the benefit of expert
testimony – epistemic autonomy is not viable in a world where most knowledge requires
specialisation/expertise
- For Hardwig, epistemic dependence is rational, where he argues that we all believe more than
we can fully understand. For example, you might believe in the principles of physics, but you
don’t need to understand all the intricacies of quantum mechanics in order to accept its truths.
Instead, you rely on the “intellectual authority” of experts in the field who have studied and
tested those theories
