When Results Depend On Epistemology

You have probably heard the term epistemology or epistemology. The complexity of the names alone makes this topic seem interesting – and it really is. Many people have studied and discussed this theory. But what exactly is epistemology? Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge itself.

Knowledge is the amount of information and facts that you accept to be true. However, if you only accept certain facts as true, it means that you believe that other statements are false. Hence, epistemology focuses on the criteria that confirm knowledge.

The opposite is the destruction of knowledge, which is called an epistemicide. A historical example of an epistemicide can be found in the Middle Ages, when women were burned to death because they were believed to be witches. The truth, however, is that these women were burned because they believed in or knew of facts that those in power disagreed with and that could endanger them. To kill this knowledge, they killed the “witches”.

Types of epistemological knowledge

So epistemology studies knowledge itself. More precisely, it studies how you acquire knowledge. Well, according to which criteria can knowledge be acquired at all? Epistemology defines terms such as “truth”, “objectivity”, “reality” and “justification”. Epistemology is also suitable for defining what science actually is.

Now, in order to know what counts as knowledge and what does not, you must first ask yourself whether it is possible to understand a universal truth. If you think that this is not possible, you are skeptical. When you believe that certain universal truths exist, two new questions arise.

The first question is how can you find this truth? If you think you can reach them with your senses, then you are an empiricist. On the other hand, if you feel that you can find the truth using your reason, you are a rationalist.

The second question relates to the subject of truth. If you think that the object of this truth is within yourself (for example, your opinion on something), then you are an idealist. However, if the object of truth is an external reality, then you are a realist.

“I believe that television-generated epistemology is not only inferior to pressure-based epistemology, it is also dangerous and absurd.”

Neil Postman

Effects of the preference of one epistemology over another

In psychology, as in other sciences, it is important to take an epistemological position. People generally believe that scientists acquire knowledge through the use of their senses. According to this, scientists would all be empiricists. In addition, realists, too, because they seem to believe that the truth always lies in external reality.

However, not all scientists share this position. There are schools of thought like those of Interpretationism, Constructivism, or Humanism, and none of them give the same answers to the epistemological questions we mentioned earlier. Positivism and postpositivism, on the other hand, are closer to the epistemology we talked about in the previous section. Hence, there is a debate as to which epistemology is the one that offers true knowledge.

The disagreement also feeds on the fact that the knowledge brought into play by each of these schools of thought is different. Although they have much in common, the ways of acquiring knowledge or the methods used will differ from school to school. Consequently, the knowledge of one school of thought can be rejected by another – and vice versa.

Effects in Psychology

It seems that epistemology is nothing more than a scientific discussion with no answer. However, there is a debate these days that is extremely relevant to our health and wellbeing. This debate is about alternative therapies such as homeopathic medicine.

People have questioned the effectiveness of homeopathic products. Are They Really Working? The answer that postpositivism gives is “no”. Various experiments confirm that apart from the placebo effect, they have no real effects on the body. However, those whose epistemological position is at the center of rationalism and the inner object argue that if those who use medicine say that it works, then the goal has been achieved.

So you can see that the debate about alternative forms of therapy can also be conducted epistemologically. Depending on the answers to the questions we asked at the beginning of the article, you might conclude that alternative therapies might or might not be effective.

So it makes sense to know the epistemological position of the people who defend their respective beliefs if you want to discuss with them. And not only that, you also need to be a critical thinker and understand the limitations that different methods have when it comes to gaining real knowledge. In fact, none of the positions mentioned knows the ultimate truth.