What is Knowledge?

He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool,

shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not; he is ignorant,
teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep, wake
him.
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise, follow him.
Arabian proverb attributed to King Darius,
The Persian.

What can we know? This is one of the philosophical questions and

quest we need to understand. When we perceive an object the mysterious
process of human knowing takes place and we end up having an idea about
that object. What is definite with the process is the interplay between the
knower (the subject or the person) and the known (that object which is
perceived or the object of knowing). This would lead us to different notions
that the knower is the one simply giving the idea towards that object or the
object itself creating an impression to the mind.

The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστήμη or

episteme" (knowledge or science) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation).
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the study of
knowledge and seeks to answer the questions and problems concerning
human knowing. It inquires into the very nature of knowledge, the questions
of what and how can we know, and the justification or truth of the
knowledge that we have. Thus, this philosophical venture does not only
require us to understand what we know but likewise to establish the truth
or validity of such knowledge we assert.

To assert that we know something is at the same time to claim that

such idea is true. Thus, a formula that is widely accepted as a general
philosophical definition of knowledge: A JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF”. A claim
to knowledge is successful if: (1) it is believed by someone; (2) that person
can produce concrete evidence to validate his belief; and (3) this justification
supports a claim that actually corresponds with the facts. So a person who
correctly believes a thing to be true without being able to justify his belief
cannot be said to know that thing, since he still will not have sufficient
reason to believe himself to be correct.

We can have beliefs and still lack knowledge if our beliefs are false.
Unfortunately, we can also have true beliefs and still lack knowledge
because we fail to understand how and why a belief is true. Justification
involves finding such an understanding.
 The questions concerning knowledge and human knowing have been
perennial problems of philosophy. Different philosophers have provided
different answers to these questions. Needless to say, we cannot hope to
comprehend these difficult questions in a few paragraphs.

The following reading from Bernard Lonergan’s Cognitional Structure

tries to pinpoint important elements involved in human knowing. I think
this reading can be a springboard for a better comprehension of what
knowledge is and what it is not.

Cognitional Structure
Bernard Lonergan

Human knowing involves many district and irreducible activities:

seeing hearing, smelling, touching, tasting, inquiring, imagining,
understanding, conceiving, reflecting, weighing the evidence and judging.

No one of these activities, alone by itself, may be named human

knowing. An act of ocular vision may be perfect as ocular vision; yet if it
occurs without any accompanying glimmer of understanding, it is mere
gaping; and mere gaping is just stupidity. As merely seeing is not human
knowing, so for the same reason, is just stupidity. As merely seeing is not
human knowing, so for the same reason, merely hearing, merely smelling,
merely touching, merely tasting may be parts, potential components of
human knowing, but they are not human knowing itself.

What is true sense is no less true of understanding. Without the prior

presentations of sense, there is nothing for a man to understand; and when
there is nothing to understand, there is no occurrence of understanding.
Moreover, the combination of the operations of sense and understanding
does not suffice for human knowing. There must be added judging. To omit
judgment is quite literally silly; it is only by judgment that there emerges a
distinction between fact and fiction.

Nor can one place human knowing in judging to the exclusion of

experience and understanding. To pass judgment on what one does not
understand is not human understanding, but human arrogance. To pass
judgment independently of all experience is to set fact aside.

Human knowing, then, is not experience alone, not understanding

alone; not judgment alone; it is not a combination of only experience and
judgment, or of only understanding and judgment; finally, it is not
something totally apart from experience, understanding and judgment. One
has to regard an instance of human knowing not as this or that operation,
but as a whole whose parts are operations. It is a structure and indeed, a
materially dynamic structure.

But human knowing is also formally dynamic. It is self-assembling.

Self-constituting. It puts itself together, one part summoning fort the next,
till the whole is reached. And this occurs not with blindness of natural
process, but consciously, intelligently, and rationally. Experience stimulates
inquiry, and inquiry is intelligence bringing itself to act; it leads from
experience through imagination to insight; and from insight to the concepts
that combine in single objects both what has been gasped by insight and
what in experience and imagination is relevant to insight. In turn, concepts
stimulate reflection, and reflection is the conscious experience of rationality;
it marshals the evidence and weighs it either to judge or else to doubt or to
renew inquiry.

Such in briefest outline is what is meant by saying that human

knowing is a dynamic structure

Theories of Knowledge
Empiricism

A philosophical doctrine advocating that true knowledge comes from

experience, that is a posterioi, or postexperential. Empiricists are assured
only by their own experience, which agrees with the saying, “to see is to
believe.” Experience in this sense may come from our personal encounter
with the external world be it personal or vicarious or may come from
internal sensations such feeling and thinking or external sensations which
gives importance on the senses. This gives us the notion that whatever
knowledge we acquire and we have is simply based from one’s
own experience. This concept has its objective reference from
which knowledge is acquired as we see, hear, taste, smell and
touch it.
John Locke, an English empiricist, is one of the leading
proponents of empiricism. He asserts that the mind at birth is a
“tabula rasa”, an empty slate or blank paper that is devoid of anything on it.
It is through experience that we begin to fill up the ideas in the mind and
therefore acquire knowledge about things. The concept of empiricism clearly
negates the Rationalist’s belief on innate or inborn ideas. Thus, experience
is the very source of our knowledge

Rationalism

An epistemological view claiming that true knowledge is acquired

through reason and not experience. Rationalists believe that knowledge is
primarily acquired by a priori or preexperience processes or is innate—e.g.,
in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical
processes often go by the name "intuition”. Rationalists claim that, we know
what we have thought and the mind has the ability to discover truth by
itself. We do not learn things but simply remember what they already know.
It attempts to account for all objects in nature and experiences as
representations of the mind. Knowledge then is intellectual rather that
sensory.
 Rationalism upholds the doctrine that knowledge is
inborn and ideas are innate which is totally against empiricism.
The prominent philosopher who advocated innate idea was
Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher. At the moment of birth,
the mind is already furnished with a range of ideas and
concepts that accordingly owes nothing to experience. Inborn
knowledge, however, is initially dormant but with discussions,
PLATO
intellectual dispute, critical thinking and argument will unfold
or unveil the innate ideas that we have.

Skepticism

The theory of knowledge upholding that knowledge is limited and that

we can not be completely certain of what we know. Skepticism
questions the limitations of the mind to process the things
that we perceive, thus, giving us uncertain knowledge. There
is likewise the inaccessibility of object that our senses perceive
because our senses can be deceived and therefore unreliable.
Though this theory asserts the limitation of knowledge, it does
not preclude us to seek for knowledge but rather motivates us
to further seek for the certainty of the knowledge we acquire,
be it from the senses or the mind. Descartes and Hume are DESCARTES
some of the philosophers who adhere to this kind of
philosophy.

ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN KNOWING

As we have learned earlier. Various philosophers have offers what for

them is a good method to acquire knowledge. We can benefit from them by
studying some of these important methods that have some practical value.

1. DIALECTICAL METHOD – also known as the dialogical

method” or the “Socratic Method”. The term “dialectic” is
derived from a Socrates himself who would usually
converse or argue with others, questioning them and
their assumptions Specifically in this method, two
interlocutors took turns in questioning and answering. SOCRATES
Truth is arrived at by means of this dialectical method
of asking and responding, gradually elimination the doubtful or
questionable.
Socrates was known to have argued a great deal with men of
his time, uncovering assumptions and questioning certainties. In
men discoursed too readily of justice, he asked them – “What is it?”
he demanded from them accurate definitions, clear thinking and
exact analysis.
 2. 1SYLLOGISTIC OR LOGICAL METHOD – this method
is attributed to Aristotle, the founder of Logic. By a
combination of agreement and disagreement between
three terms, a conclusion is reached. If two terms or
parties separately agree with a third term or party, then
the two terms agree with each other. Aristotle
exhausted all the possible combinations and
formulated laws to govern these combinations. This ARISTOTLE
method clarified and dispelled all doubt regarding the
relationship of any three terms.

3. THOMISTIC METHOD – used by St. Thomas Aquinas. The method

neatly presents the problem to be solved in the form
of a question, then proceeds to put its objections,
seemingly to support the positive or negative
answer, and then goes to the body of the argument
always introduced by “I answer that…” and caps
the whole method by answering the objections it
ST. THOMAS
had put up, thus demolishing all doubt and all
opposition.

4. THE METHODIC DOUBT – this method that Rene Descartes

advocates is an analytical one, which emphasizes the necessity of
trying to isolate the simple, and then, but only then,
trying to build the complex on its basis. The aim is
to arrive at certainly. Moreover, this is put forward
not just as a method for philosophy but as a quite
general method which all pursuit of knowledge
DESCARTES should follow. In his First Meditation he states that
we should doubt all that we know because, first,
they come from our senses which can be mistaken or can deceive
us, and second, these can be just the result of a dream or mere
hallucination.

Descartes sets out four important rules to clear thinking:

1. To accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize it to be so.
2. To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as
possible.
3.To carry on reflection in an order beginning with objects that are the most
simple and easiest to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by
degrees, to knowledge of the most complex.
4. To be thorough and general as to certain of having omitted nothing.

5. FRANCIS BACON’S RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT –

“Go to the facts themselves for everything” – that was
Bacon’s way to acquire knowledge. To proceed to a
systematic empirical study, Bacon launched his
reconstruction project by enumerating “Four Classes
of Idols” which be set man’s mind and which must be
FRANCIS BACON
 debunked. These idols of the mind are counterproductive habits of
thought that deserve to be swept away if we are to acquire
knowledge. An idol, as Bacon uses the word, is a picture taken for
a reality, a thought mistaken for a thing. These idols are the cause
of human error. They are, namely:

Idols of the Tribe – fallacies or errors natural to humanity in general. We

tend to think, for example, that sense perception gives are direct and
truthful access to reality. Bacon stressed that this assumption must be
criticized because we too easily overlook the fact that out “seeing” does not
necessarily show us things as they really are. Human sense experience,
essential though it is, does not so institute the measure of all things. We
must learn to see objectively, a task that requires us to be alert for
occasions when emotion, feelings and inference are self-deceptive.

Idols of the Cave – if the “idols of the tribe” deceive humankind, each
individual must reckon with his peculiar prejudices, which Bacon called
“idols of the cave”. Here Bacon recalls Plato’s allegory in which people
imprisoned in a cave mistake appearance for reality. Each of us has
criticized blind spots. Bacon recommends that we treat with special
suspicion any outlook that gives us special satisfaction. We tend to believe
what we like to believe, but that path does not lead to knowledge.

Idols of the Marketplace – these are errors that emerge from the words we
use in everyday business, from the association of men with one another.
Their meanings are often vague and ambiguous, but they solidify our
impressions and beliefs nonetheless. “Men converse by means of language;
but words are imposed according t the understanding of the crowd; and
there arises from a had and inept formation of words, a wonderful
obstruction to the mind”. Bacon stresses that, “unless we guard against the
ill and unfit choice of words, their impact cam force and overrule the
understanding and throw all into confusion.

Idols of the Theater – these are idols, which have migrated into men’s kind
from the various dogmas of philosophers and also from wrong laws of
demonstration. Many philosophical speculations claim to be true accounts
of reality, but in fact, they are closer to stage plays depicting unreal worlds
of human creation. Specifically, Bacon faults three types of false philosophy.
Exemplified by Aristotle, the first trusts non-empirical inference too much;
its result is sophistry. Although experimental, the second draws from
sweeping conclusions from too little data; its result is psuedoscience. The
third mixes philosophy and religion indiscriminately; its result superstition.
 VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE

Lesson 4 – Display

The previous discussions has given us enough idea that man indeed
can know something as exemplified by the different theories of knowledge
and the philosophical ways in acquiring knowledge. As we have defined
earlier, knowledge is a justified true belief. This clearly states that it is not
enough to claim that we have knowledge of certain matters. It further
obliges us to establish justification of those claims we assert. This points out
the need for criteria by which our knowledge can be judged as true or false.
Different criteria such as customs, traditions, consensus of majority can be
cited but the following discussion will deal more on the philosophical criteria
in validating knowledge.

Correspondence theory
This theory holds that true or valid knowledge is what
conforms or corresponds to facts or agrees which objective
reality. This criteria of knowledge recognizes the interplay
between the idea or belief that we claim to know and the facts
themselves. The facts are neither true nor false but it is the
knowledge or claim asserted about them. If I claim and say that BELTRAND
Pedro is tall and it correspond to the objective and factual reality RUSSEL
of Pedro, then it is true; otherwise, it is false. Thus, a valid knowledge is that
which corresponds to reality.
One of the defenders of this theory is Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
and he philosophized that true knowledge is the fact corresponding to the
belief. Mind does not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when
once the beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false,
except in the special case where they concern future things which are within
the power of person believing, such as catching trains. What makes a belief
true is a fact.

Coherence theory
This theory asserts the validity of knowledge if there is consistency.
The knowledge that we claim is counted to be true when it finds harmony or
consistency with other claims or ideas. If it fails to do so, then such claim
finds no truth but falsity. To establish that knowledge is true does not give
emphasis on the interplay between the facts or objective reality, as
correspondence theory would put it. Truth or falsity of the ideas or the
judgment we assert depends on its consistency with other judgments. So far
as I make the judgment that Pedro is a good man is consistent with other
judgments that he is indeed good, such judgments finds it meaning and
truth. This coherence theory is substantiated with the use of Logic for
validity of judgments can be evaluated from the logical relations or
consistency of those judgments. Thus, truth or falsity of the knowledge that
we claim to believe is established along with its coherence or consistency
with other claims.
Pragmatic Theory
Pragmatic theory of knowledge claims that true and valid knowledge is
one which is practical or useful. No matter how great an idea is, what
concerns for the pragmatists is how our ideas, beliefs, or knowledge is
useful and beneficial in its own way. Pragmatism considers the relativity of
knowledge for what works in one instance may not be to all. Once
knowledge does not lead to good consequences, knowledge is deemed
worthless, hence, false and unacceptable. True and valid knowledge then is
what works. Among the philosophers with pragmatic views include: William
James, John Dewey and Charles Pierce.

Additional Reading:
Epistemological Skepticism by C.E.M. Joad (1891-1953)

. . . . . Let us suppose that I am looking at a star, Sirius say, on a dark night.

If physics is to be believed, light waves which started to travel from Sirius
many years ago reach (after a specified time which astronomers calculate)
the earth, impinge upon my retina and cause me to say that I am seeing
Sirius. Now the Sirius about which they convey information to me is the
Sirius, which existed at the time when they started. This Sirius, may,
however, no longer exist; it may have disappeared in the interim. To say that
one can see what no longer exists is absurd. It follows that, whatever it is
that I am seeing, it is not Sirius. What, in fact, I do see is yellow patch of a
particular size, shape and intensity. I infer that this yellow patch had am
origin (with which it is connected by a continuous chain of physical events)
several years ago and many million miles away. But this inference may be
mistaken; the origin of the yellow patch, which I call a star, may be a blow
on the nose, or a lamp hanging on the mast of a ship.
Nor is this the only inference involved. It is true I think I am seeing a
yellow patch, but am I really justified in holding this belief? So far as
physics and physiology are concerned, all that we are entitled to say is that
the optic nerve is being stimulated in a certain way, as a result of which
certain events are being caused in the brain. Are we really justified in saying
any more than this? Possibly we are… but it is important to realize that once
again an inference is involved, and once again the inference may be
mistaken. Directly we go beyond the bare statement “the optic nerve is being
stimulated in such and such a way” and conclude from this fact “therefore I
am seeing an object of such and such character”, we are drawing an
inference and are liable to fall into error. What, then, if the physicist and
physiologist are right, we in fact know that certain events are taking is
merely an inference due to the fact that we think these events must have a
cause…
If we accept the teaching of physics and physiology, what we know in
perception are not the movements of matter, but certain events in ourselves
connected with those movements; not objects external to ourselves, but the
effects of the impact of light-rays and other form of energy proceeding from
these objects upon our bodies…
What, then, is left in the world outside us? We cannot tell.