How do I know what I know?
How do I know what I know?
As a teenager, for a time, I had this recurring thought. How can I know what’s true if I’m never certain I answered all the questions? Epistemology, the philosophy that seeks to determine what is knowledge and how we obtain it, deals with these types of concerns. Key to answering these questions is first determining what is reality?
Epistemological relativists wonder if what we see, hear or touch is the actual reality or is reality how we determine it to be through our own private understanding and intelligence? Is aging an absolute or can we live forever if we just obtain the right knowledge? Can we create our own reality and prefer to live in only that one? We have virtual reality and now metaverse. Who’s to say it can’t become our own separate world with our own logic and determination of what is good for us?
Conceptual relativism, a branch of epistemology, states there are no absolute principles that sustain a standard belief through rationality or confirmation. People from different cultures with different languages can have unique core ideas and experiences that lead them to different beliefs about the world. There is no right or wrong belief just what is perceived to be true.
With science epistemological relativism will dodge declaring certain observable facts consistently seen over time as true by assuming more information is out there. Some will talk about space aliens beginning the evolutionary process rather than the idea of a God who started the Big Bang. On and on it goes with each new fact discovered there are a thousand what if’s to be asked. It’s the same dilemma I had as a teenager. It’s impossible to find anything firm and lasting to stand on.
Epistemological realism believes the world as it is, exists by itself, and is independent of how we perceive it to be. All life and the complex interrelationships, all the laws and principles inherent and woven within reality, all exist separately before we even discover they exist. They are fixed, if not our beliefs about the world couldn’t be true since true belief tells us how things are. In other words the world outside of ourselves is a mind-independent reality.
If reality is an illusion or at best just one’s individual perception of facts which are always subject to change because the truth is always out there, then how can modern science be so successful? When will the preponderance of observable, proveable facts be so great that the mantra will become the truth is actually here now?
Epistemological realism norms of understanding reality by having observable evidence of natural phenomenon experienced through the senses being consistently the same over time and using logic to explain it have taught us so much especially about the natural world. Have cars ever stopped running because gasoline no longer was combustible or steel suddenly became like cardboard and buildings collapsed?
If the natural world is so intricately designed and controlled by laws could there be universal laws true in all times and places that govern the behavior of man? Are these laws observable, consistent over all time and places and logically reasonable? Ask a conceptual relativist if there are no absolute standards of human behavior after their car has been stolen or they have lived in a communist country?
When someone says there is no right or wrong it’s just what’s true for you, ask them if what Hitler believed was true for him? What about Pol Pot in Cambodia who killed millions or Stalin another mass murderer? Were their actions okay because what they believed was true for them? How can we survive and prosper when people say it doesn’t matter what you think as long as you feel it is true? Statements like that just do not correspond with reality.
Epistemology digs deep to discover the basic origins of knowledge so we can determine if it’s valid. An epistemological realist believes certain basic beginning ideas or first principles are true and valid for all times in the physical world and in morality. Epistemological relativists may agree on some absolute principles of nature with certain caveats but never on absolute moral principles.
That’s really interesting because they act like there are moral absolutes when they support communism or profess to be atheists but attack a Christian or capitalist for their beliefs. Carefully following a person’s assumptions back you can find what assumption or first principle is the very foundation of all their beliefs. Going back you will see where they made wrong conclusions or just flat out lied and reaching the beginning really know what’s in their heart.
A conceptual relativist would be unable to use this process. How could they even challenge the assumptions having to do with moral judgments when they think whatever you believe is true for you? They wouldn’t be able to look back at history to compare the results of different behaviors and make value judgments. Every generation would have to struggle through life making mistakes and creating their own hell because it would be judgmental or old-fashioned if someone dared tell them they were doing something wrong.
I can’t see how someone could live this way. It would be very difficult and dystopian if played out in society. How would I even know what questions to ask because they would always be changing as people evolved? So I’d have to forget about wondering if I asked all the questions. I’d get to the second or third question and have to start over again as the dystopian world dictated. First principles sound kind of reassuring like theirs some kind of truth and permanency.
So I decided maybe I could find the answer to my question as a teenager and find reassurance if I learned more about first principles so I decided to investigate. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher during the Classical period of ancient Greece, said a first principle is the first basis by which a thing is known and can not be broken down through deduction any further.
He believed all things in nature are caused and part of a long chain of causes stretching backward. These long chains must have a starting point because causal chains cannot be infinite in length. I was born because of my parents who were born because of their parents and I could go back to the very first parents. But where did they come from? Where did everything come from? What or who caused all this? Could this be the very, very first cause?
Ancient religions believed in a chaotic world of warring and capricious gods controlling nature as they wished. Judaism was the first religion to believe in one supreme God, intelligent designer, creator, ruler and judge of the world. Years later, St.Thomas of Aquinas, said he believed the first cause is God and the result is the world and every human, animal, and plant on earth. The effect: order, direction, coherence and predictability.
Judaism also believed in the principle of divine reason and creative order being the essence and fabric of our world and the universe. Even early Greek philosophers intuitively believed the world could be understood. This core belief or first principle drives science in its quest for knowledge and understanding of everything in the universe.
Science relies on facts and first principles you can see, touch and hear over time that fit together into scientific laws and theories. They are reality itself and backed by scientists like Einstein, Newton and Hubble. Seeing how laws fit together into coherent, logical systems called theories gives me confidence in something I can stand on.
A first principle fact that light becomes more red as it moves away led to the Redshift Theory in 1915. This led Edwin Hubble, chief astronomer at Mt. Wilson Observatory, to discover the Law of Cosmic Expansion in 1929. Then in the early 1960’s, Robert Dicke, an astronomer and physicist, at Princeton University discovered remnant radiation called cosmic microwave background from the early formation of the universe which lead to the Big Bang Theory.
The Third Law of Motion, a first principle discovered by Isaac Newton, states for every action there is an equal reaction. Could the first action have been the Big Bang and what kind of action is capable of creating beings capable of thought. Many have conceded the Big Bang but have they honestly investigated and analyzed all of the effects of the Big Bang and the implications of who or what started everything?
For example many scientists ignore discoveries in microbiology showing the awesome complexity of life at the cellular level. The discovery that DNA is like a computer program transmitting mind bending amounts of information directing and regulating biological processes in the cell and between cells seems to go right over their head. Bill Gates himself said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
If Bill Gates says software was created by man then who or what created DNA which is far, far more advanced than any software ever made? Could mindless undirected matter over eons of time through chance mutations have made DNA which is in every living thing and determines its form and function?
Could the answer to how and possibly who caused the world and all its inhabitants to come into existence be the ultimate first principle of all first principles? The answer would determine how we view life itself…how we feel about ourselves and the ultimate end game whether we are conscious of it or not. What is the meaning of life and how do we determine it? Do we make up our own rules without thinking through the consequences or admit we are flawed and limited in need of help? Could that be God?
Voltaire, French philosopher during the Age of Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century said “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.” He also said “it is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being.” Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin had similar beliefs.
Maybe I can never be certain if I asked all the questions … maybe you have to get to the point where you have asked all your questions and simply just have to believe? What do you think?