Epistemology is that part of philosophy that asks "what can we know?" "What can we be sure of?

" "How
do we get beyond mere opinion to real knowledge?"

Traditionally, there are two approaches to epistemology: rationalism, which says we gain knowledge
through reasoning, and empiricism, which says we gain knowledge through sensory experience.
Although there are a few extremist philosophers, generally most agree that both these approaches to
knowledge are needed, and that to some extent they support and correct each other. More on that in a
moment.

Rationalists focus on what they call necessary truth. By that they mean that certain things are
necessarily true, always, universally. Another term that means the same thing is a priori truth. A priori
is Latin for "beforehand," so a priori truth is something you know must be true before you even start
looking at the world the senses reveal to us.

The most basic form of necessary truth is the self-evident truth. Self-evident means you don’t really
even have to think about it. It has to be true. The truths of mathematics, for example, are often
thought of as self-evident. One plus one equals two. You don’t need to go all over the world counting
things to prove this. In fact, one plus one equals two is something you need to believe before you can
count at all!

(One of the criticisms that empiricists would put forth is that “one plus one is two” is trivial. It is
tautological, meaning it is true, sure, but not because it is self-evident: It is true because we made it
that way. One plus one is the definition of two, and so with the rest of mathematics. We created math
in such a way that it works consistently for us!)

Other self-evident truths that have been put forth over the years include “you can’t be in two places at
once,” “something either is or it isn’t,” “everything exists.” These are pretty good candidates, don’t you
think? But often, what is self-evident to one person is not self-evident to another. “God exists” is
perhaps the most obvious one -- some people disagree with it quite vigorously. Or “the universe had to
have a beginning” -- some people believe it has always been. A familiar use of the phrase “self-evident”
is Thomas Jefferson's use of it in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-
evident: That all men are created equal....” But it is pretty obvious to most that this is not, really, true.
Instead, it is a rhetorical device, that is, it sounds good to put it that way!
In order to reason our way to more complex knowledge, we have to add deduction (also known as
analytic truth) to the picture. This is what we usually think of when we think of thinking: With the rules
of logic, we can discover what truths follow from other truths. The basic form of this is the syllogism, a
pattern invented by Aristotle which has continued to be the foundation of logic to the present day.

The traditional example is this one, called modus ponens: “Men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore
Socrates is mortal.” If x, then y (if you are human, then you are mortal). X (you are human). Therefore,
y (you are mortal). This result will always be true, if the first two parts are true. So we can create whole
systems of knowledge by using more and more of these logical deductions!

Another syllogism that always works is in the form “If x, then y. Not y. Therefore not x.” If you are
human, then you are mortal. You are not mortal. Therefore, you are not human. If the first two parts
are true, then the last one is necessarily true. This one is called modus tollens.

On the other hand, there are two examples that don’t work, even though they sound an awful lot like
the ones I just showed you: If x, then y. Not x. Therefore not y. If you are human, then you are mortal.
You are not human. Therefore you are not mortal. That, of course, would come as a big surprise to
animals! Or look at this example: “If God would show himself to me personally, that would prove the
truth of religion. But he hasn’t done so. Therefore, religion is false.” It sounds like a reasonable
argument, but it is not. (This is called denial of the antecedent.)

Another goes like this: If x, then y. Y. Therefore x. If you are human, then you are mortal. You are
mortal. Therefore you are human. Or try this one: “If God created the universe, we would see order in
nature. We do in fact see order in the universe -- the laws of nature! Therefore, God must have created
the universe.” It sounds good, doesn’t it? But it is not at all logical: The order in the universe could have
another cause. (This is called affirmation of the consequent.)