WAYS OF KNOWING

SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE There are different ways for us to obtain knowledge. Hospers
(1995) identifies seven main sources of knowledge:

(1) Perception (more will be covered under Empiricism) E.g. You are asked: “How do you know
that there is a book before you?” Your reply is: “I see and touch it.” Your senses (seeing and
touching) help you to know that. What is knowledge?

(2) Reason (more will be covered under Rationalism) E.g. You are asked: “How do you know
that A is smaller than C?” Your reply is: “If A is smaller than B, and B is smaller than C, then A
is larger than C.” Your ability to think logically helps you to know that.

(3) Introspection E.g. “I feel so peaceful today, I don’t know why”. In this case, the person
knows the truth of how he/she feels or what he/she is thinking of.

(4) Memory E.g. You are asked: “How do you know that you have lunch just now?” Your reply
is: “I remember it.” Your ability to recount events that have taken place helps you to know that.

(5) Faith E.g. You are asked: “How do you know that God exists?” Your reply is: “I just know it.
I trust God.” Your faith or trust in God is the source of your knowledge that God exists.

(6) Intuition E.g. You are asked: “How do you know that that was the way out of the maze?”
Your reply is: “I have a gut feeling that that is the way.” Your intuition helps you to know that.

(7) Testimony E.g. You are asked: “How do you know that Singapore became independent in
1965?” Your reply is: “I read it in my textbook.” The testimony or words of experts help you to
know that.

INTUITION

The first method of knowing is intuition. When we use our intuition, we are relying on our guts,
our emotions, and/or our instincts to guide us. Rather than examining facts or using rational
thought, intuition involves believing what feels true. The problem with relying on intuition is that
our intuitions can be wrong because they are driven by cognitive and motivational biases rather
than logical reasoning or scientific evidence. While the strange behavior of your friend may lead
you to think s/he is lying to you it may just be that s/he is preoccupied with some other issue that
is irrelevant to you. However, weighing alternatives and thinking of all the different possibilities
can be paralyzing for some people and sometimes decisions based on intuition are actually
superior to those based on analysis (people interested in this idea should read Malcolm
Gladwell’s book Blink)[1].

Consensus
A public agreement. There may be public agreements on opposition to vaccines and their
possible effects; a common enemy, a trend or fashion. Scientific consensus depends upon
absence of counter evidence.
AUTHORITY

Perhaps one of the most common methods of acquiring knowledge is through authority. This
method involves accepting new ideas because some authority figure states that they are true.
These authorities include parents, the media, doctors, Priests and other religious authorities, the
government, and professors. While in an ideal world we should be able to trust authority figures,
history has taught us otherwise and many instances of atrocities against humanity are a
consequence of people unquestioningly following authority (e.g., Salem Witch Trials, Nazi War
Crimes). On a more benign level, while your parents may have told you that you should make
your bed in the morning, making your bed provides the warm damp environment in which mites
thrive. Keeping the sheets open provides a less hospitable environment for mites. These
examples illustrate that the problem with using authority to obtain knowledge is that they may be
wrong, they may just be using their intuition to arrive at their conclusions, and they may have
their own reasons to mislead you. Nevertheless, much of the information we acquire is through
authority because we don’t have time to question and independently research every piece of
knowledge we learn through authority. But we can learn to evaluate the credentials of authority
figures, to evaluate the methods they used to arrive at their conclusions, and evaluate whether
they have any reasons to mislead us.
RATIONALISM

Rationalism involves using logic and reasoning to acquire new knowledge. Using this method
premises are stated and logical rules are followed to arrive at sound conclusions. For instance, if
I am given the premise that all swans are white and the premise that this is a swan then I can
come to the rational conclusion that this swan is white without actually seeing the swan. The
problem with this method is that if the premises are wrong or there is an error in logic then the
conclusion will not be valid. For instance, the premise that all swans are white is incorrect; there
are black swans in Australia. Also, unless formally trained in the rules of logic it is easy to make
an error. Nevertheless, if the premises are correct and logical rules are followed appropriately
then this is sound means of acquiring knowledge.
EMPIRICISM

Empiricism involves acquiring knowledge through observation and experience. Once again
many of you may have believed that all swans are white because you have only ever seen white
swans. For centuries people believed the world is flat because it appears to be flat. These
examples and the many visual illusions that trick our senses illustrate the problems with relying
on empiricism alone to derive knowledge. We are limited in what we can experience and observe
and our senses can deceive us. Moreover, our prior experiences can alter the way we perceive
events. Nevertheless, empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method. Science relies on
observations. But not just any observations, science relies on structured observations which is
known as systematic empiricism.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method is a process of systematically collecting and evaluating evidence to test
ideas and answer questions. While scientists may use intuition, authority, rationalism, and
empiricism to generate new ideas they don’t stop there. Scientists go a step further by using
systematic empiricism to make careful observations under various controlled conditions in order
to test their ideas and they use rationalism to arrive at valid conclusions. While the scientific
method is the most likely of all of the methods to produce valid knowledge, like all methods of
acquiring knowledge it also has its drawbacks. One major problem is that it is not always
feasible to use the scientific method; this method can require considerable time and resources.
Another problem with the scientific method is that it cannot be used to answer all questions. As
described in the following section, the scientific method can only be used to address empirical
questions. This book and your research methods course are designed to provide you with an in-
depth examination of how psychologists use the scientific method to advance our understanding
of human behavior and the mind.

Three types of epistemologies : Truth, belief and justification

The Truth Condition (1) It is true that p What do we mean when we say that something is true?
There are three main theories of truth.
(A) Correspondence theory of truth “p” is true if it corresponds with a fact, some situation or
state-of-affairs. For example, take this statement: “There is a library at Queenstown”. For this
statement to be true, it must be the case that there is indeed a library at Queenstown. The
statement corresponds with the fact that the library is there. Audi (2003) explains that the
correspondence theory of truth is linked to realism in the sense that the proposition “There is a
green field before me” is true provided that in reality there is a green field before me. Whether
there is a green field before me is not dependent on what I think. In other words, the truth of our
beliefs is not mind-dependent.
This theory is associated with empiricism (Hamlyn, 1970). Empirical statements in science such
as “Iron expands when heated” are based on direct perceptions of the world with the help of our
senses. One criticism about this theory is that it cannot explain statements where there is no
obvious fact, situation or state-of-affairs to correspond to (Hospers, 1995). For example,
statements such as “The hydrogen atom has one electron”, and “Honesty is a virtue” do not
correspond to a particular fact or situation.
(B) Coherence theory of truth A body of beliefs is said to be coherent when: (a) none of them is
inconsistent with any others, and (b) each belief adds some probability to the others. Take for
example a hit-and-run road accident where a pedestrian y has been hit by a car and left to die.
Suppose the police suspect that x is the driver who knocked down y. Even if this is true, there is
no existing fact or situation to correspond with this belief since the accident has already taken
place. But the police could establish the truth by relying on circumstantial evidence such as the
testimony of eye-witnesses who saw x dashing off, evidence from x’s car which shows a dent,
and x’s own admission that he was at the crime scene. All these evidence are consistent with one
another, and serve to add probability to the others. So this is an example of how the statement
that “The police know that x is the driver who knocked down y” is true.
Hamlyn (1970) notes that this theory is associated with rationalism. For example in mathematical
statements such as “1 + 1 = 2”, what is important is that the beliefs are coherent. It is not
necessary to get outside one’s thought to a direct confrontation with reality.
One criticism of this theory is that it is possible to have a coherent body of beliefs that is
nevertheless false. For example, the religious beliefs of certain cult groups may be coherent but
false. A possible alternative is to combine the Correspondence and Coherence theories. If there is
direct evidence, then the correspondence theory should be used. If there is no direct evidence,
then coherence will be used as a test of truth. Hospers (1995) explains: … the coherence theory
is applicable to situations in which no direct evidence is possible; however, “coherence with a
body of belief” is acceptable only if it is coherence with a true body of belief – and the word
“true” in this last occurrence then means something like “correspondence with the facts” (p.
186).
(C) Pragmatic theory of truth This view holds that true propositions are simply those that work,
in the sense that they are successful in practice – pragmatically. This means that believing them,
acting on them, and otherwise confirming them lead (at least in the long run) to positive results
(Audi, 2003). A false proposition, therefore, would be one where there is disconfirmation with
enough testing. For example, the statement that “I know that there is a library in Queenstown”
simply means that I can borrow books from it and find materials there for my research. If I (or
anyone) am able to do so repeatedly, then there is confirmation that the proposition is true. One
criticism is that a false proposition may work because it survives the testing. It may be the case
that repeated testing yields the result and the falsity is never discovered.

The Belief Condition

S believes that p (or S accepts that p) S cannot be said to know p, even if p is true, if he or she
does not personally believe it. While most philosophers are content with using “believes” for
condition , Lehrer(1990) argues that it is more accurate to use the word “accepts”. He notes that
it is accepting something for the purpose of attaining truth (or epistemic purpose) and avoiding
error with respect to the very thing one accepts. He points out that sometimes we believe things
that we do not accept for the sake of felicity rather than a regard for truth. For example, a mother
may believe that a loved one is safe for the pleasure of so believing, though there is no evidence
to justify accepting this out of regard for truth.
The Justification Condition
S is justified in believing that p (has good reasons in believing that p) belief that is true just
because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false
more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true. The reason why
knowledge is not the same as true belief is that knowledge requires evidence.
To be justified is to have good evidence for believing in something. Steup (2001) gives the
following example: Suppose William takes a medication that has the following side effect: it
causes him to be overcome with irrational fears. One of his fears is that he has cancer. This fear
is so powerful that he starts believing it. Suppose further that, by sheer coincidence, he does have
cancer. So his belief is true. Clearly, though, his belief does not amount to knowledge. But why
not? Most people would agree that William does not know because his belief’s truth is due to
luck (bad luck, in this case). Philosophers call a belief’s turning out to be true because of mere
luck epistemic luck.