Explore BrainMass


As epistemology is the study of knowledge, (literally from the Greek episteme meaning ‘knowledge’1), it is important that one take in the difficulties in defining knowledge itself before attempting to connect the idea to other areas. Unfortunately, this is no easy task and has had philosophers from Plato to Descartes to Russell scratching their heads for years. Thankfully, we do have a “standard” definition, adopted mostly as the best of many incomplete options. For this definition, we let p be a proposition and S be the subject attempting to gain knowledge about p. p can be considered knowledge if and only if:

  1. S believes p.
  2. p is true.
  3. S's belief in p is justified.

As you can see, this definition present knowledge as the cross-section of truth and belief - as the ownership of a truth via personal belief.

While this definition does provide a useful basis for thinking on the topic, it must be noted that many prominent minds have and still do beg to differ, not the least of which being Plato’s Socrates who posited that belief was dangerously unsound by nature and had no place in the search for knowledge (see Belief and Truth for further details). In addition, this raises the very problematic question of the existence of universal knowledge. Due to the sheer range of individual experiences, peoples’ beliefs are incredibly varied and therefore their resultant knowledge will be too. And this isn't even touching on the immediately worrisome prospect of proving p is true as required by criterion 2. How can we hope to prove something is true without knowledge that the scientific theories and equipment we use to prove it is true? Then that knowledge requires proof too, providing an issue rather recursive in nature that, like much in the field of epistemology, continues to undergo rigorous debate.




1. Douglas Harper (2011-15). Epistemology. [ONLINE] Available at: [Last Accessed 01/02/2014].
Paul Pardi (2011). What is Knowledge?. [ONLINE] Available at: [Last Accessed 01/02/2014].

Categories within Knowledge

Knowing through Experience

Postings: 6

One proposed method of gaining the proof necessary to constitute knowledge is to use our own senses and experience, though there is an inherent unreliability in sense and memory which makes this problematic.


Postings: 13

Reason and logic are well-love tools for establishing knowledge in every scientific field from philosophy to mathematics, yet to reason something infallibly is often far harder than it appears.

Belief & Truth

Postings: 17

This section looks at whether there are differences between belief and truth and what they might be as well as how beliefs are formed and justified.

Personal Philosophy: Locke

1. Which of the ways of knowing makes the most sense to you (compared to people like Descartes, William James, William Cliford etc)? Why? Which makes the least sense? Why? 2. What is your own way of assessing truth claims when made by: a) friends, b) media and c) scholarly works or books? This is to help facilitate my own

Knowledge vs. Opinion: Where and How do we draw the line?

We do not know everything. In fact, there are lots of things we can never know. So, how can we recognize the limits of our capacity for knowledge? What role might skepticism and the method of doubt play in helping us to delineate our limits? How do we know when to keep trying to figure something out and when it is better to give

The difference between knowing and believing

What is the difference between what is known and what is believed? It may seem like an obvious question, but if you look below the surface and really investigate the difference between knowledge and belief, you may find yourself second-guessing some of your most basic assumptions. As a general definition, knowledge is somethi

Aristotle's Distinction Between Knowledge and Theoretical Knowledge

Hi, I need some help with these questions: Can you help me clarify Aristotle's distinction between practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge? Does an understanding of this distinction help account for why people who know certain habits or behaviors are harmful and still persist in those behaviors?

Discussion Question

Needing help answering this question. Referring to the literature on organizational epistemology, what do you understand by the term "tacit knowledge" and why might it be reckoned to be important within contemporary organizational theory?

The nature of knowledge: Schommer-Aikens & Hutter

Review the Schommer-Aikens & Hutter article ("Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues"). Provide a philosophical analysis of the article: - Identify the philosophical assumptions underlying the research and methodology. - Explain the practical significance of the assumptions and their effect

A perspective on knowledge

Submit analysis that outlines a perspective on knowledge as acquired through exposure to stimuli outside of formal (work or educational) arenas. Analyze a sensory experience obtained from an organized activity (e.g. a visit to a museum, attendance at a play or concert, or participation in a sport) or an unstructured activity (e.

An Exploration of Knowledge

I am trying to get a better understanding of knowledge. A. How can knowledge be obtained through expose to a stimuli outside of work or school? B. What sensory experiences could I possibly obtain from an activity such as a visit to a museum or a walk in the park?

Absolute certainty is considered.

Is it possible to know anything with absolute certainty? I have been looking at Descartes meditations but my instructor pointed me to epistemology. Can I just get some directions on how to prove that there is no such things as knowing something with absolute certainty.

Philosophy of Knowledge

a. What are the major areas addressed by traditional philosophers of knowledge, and how do they compare with modern day concerns in this area? Consider a broad spectrum of eras and approaches in your response. b. What avenues of epistemic exploration will be useful in business endeavors, and which do you consider inapplicable

What is Knowledge

1. State your belief as to which source of knowledge, rationalism or empiricism, leads to the most reliable form of knowledge and why. 2. Can certainty be obtained as a criterion of knowledge? How, or why not? In the Discussions Area you MUST answer the following two questions: 3. It has been proposed that

List of questions that I have tried to deal with and can't seem to grasp

I am trying to answer the following questions. I can not seem to grasp the idea of this information, it is confusing me and I need to be able to see a general idea that will clear it up for me. What is the distinction between opinion and knowledge?How would the two philosophical schools of thought Epistemology and Meta

Locke's take on knowledge is expressed.

How does Locke differentiate between knowledge of substance and general ideas? In particular, why does he think that knowledge of nature, like Newtonian physics, is really belief, while mathematics and "morals" (Locke's term for ethics and politics) is where he thinks we can attain knowledge?

Republic dissection occurs.

Why according to Plato, are ordinary, sensible objects like trees or chairs merely objects of opinion while only the Forms (the Just itself, the Beautiful itself) are knowable?