The purpose of this webpage is to help you become aware of the epistemological assumptions that shape your judgment and behavior.
By taking this short quiz and carefully considering each question, we hope to encourage you to become more curious about the world around you as you continue to learn.
To get the most out of the quiz, we suggest taking 5-10 minutes to reflect on each of the three questions presented.
If you would like to contribute to this project, it is being hosted at https://github.com/maracman/EpistemologyQuiz
We welcome all contributions!
Think for a moment.
Correspondence Theory: holds that truth is not just a matter of personal opinion or belief, but rather is grounded in the objective reality of the world. In other words, truth is a relationship between a proposition and the way things actually are in the world. For instance, the statement "the earth orbits the sun" is true because it corresponds with the actual astronomical relationship between the two celestial bodies.
Coherence Theory: According to this theory, a belief is true if it coherently fits within an existing system of beliefs. Truth is determined by the logical consistency and coherence of a proposition with other accepted propositions. This theory emphasises the interconnectedness of beliefs and suggests that truth is relative to a particular conceptual framework or belief system.
Pragmatic Theory: This theory argues that truth is determined by the practical consequences and usefulness of a belief. If accepting a belief leads to successful outcomes or helps solve problems, it is considered true. Pragmatic theorists emphasise the functional and instrumental aspects of truth rather than its relationship to objective reality or coherence within a belief system.
Consensus Theory: This theory states that truth is determined by widespread agreement or consensus among a group. In this view, truth is socially constructed and can change over time as people's beliefs and opinions evolve. The consensus theory suggests that there is no absolute, objective truth, but rather that truth is relative to the beliefs of a particular community or culture.
Constructivist Theory: According to this theory, truth is a human-made construct that arises from our interpretations and understandings of the world. Constructivist theorists argue that there is no objective reality independent of our perceptions and that truth is created through our individual and collective cognitive processes.
Deflationary Theory: This theory asserts that truth is a simple, unanalyzable property of propositions and that there is no underlying nature or essence to truth. Deflationary theorists argue that to say a proposition is true is just to assert the proposition itself, without adding any substantive content or meaning.
The correspondence theory of truth doesn’t encompass, motivations and ideals. In other words, there is no way to derive how someone should act from what we can observe about what “is” in the world. Many people believe in the existence of objective moral truths, such as "killing is wrong”, the opinion that such values are objective and universal is not likely to be defensible from a pure correspondence theory of truth. Can you think of how?
For instance, people once believed the Earth was flat, but now we know it is round. How do we know what we observe to be the case now is, in fact true? And what about people who have differing opinions, who’s authority are you going to take on things that you cannot observe.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as one of its premises.
The argument fails to provide independent evidence or reasons to support the conclusion, relying instead on the conclusion itself as its own justification.
The fantasy worlds of J.K Rowling, George R.R. Martin or J.R.R Tolkien are surprisingly fleshed out and coherent, yet what would you think if one of your friends suddenly professed claimed that they were true and accurate depictions of reality? On what grounds would you coax them back to the world they were actually living in?
Arguably very few people in this world have an entirely coherent system of beliefs. Imagine, for instance, you hold two competing systems such that exactly 50% of your beliefs adhere to one system and 50% to another. What criteria would you use to decide which half of your beliefs to relinquish? The coherence theory doesn’t appear to hold the solution.
Even if a very small percentage of your beliefs were in conflict with the others, should you really get rid of them? perhaps those small sets of beliefs are the beliefs that you get the most practical use from and help you to live day to day.
The belief in lucky charms or superstitions can be useful for some people, providing confidence or control in uncertain situations. However, there may be no objective evidence to support the effectiveness of these charms or superstitions, making it difficult to reconcile their practical usefulness with their lack of correspondence to reality.
Much of what we observe we say is true because we can predict it with more or less 100% certainty, but holds no practical purpose. Scientific discovery is made with this in mind, it is interested in things being true because they are replicable, driven by curiosity, practical applications of scientific discovery often comes much later, yet we would probably still say that it is true before this point.
Pragmatism is dependent on motivational end-points. What if someone’s motivation was chaos and destruction? Even the basic building blocks of causation might hold no practical use to them. For instance, the truth of the car hurtling towards them as they cross the road cannot be derived from their standpoint. Perhaps then, pragmatic truth can only be the case as far as we are loosely bound together by humanity’s common goals of survival and reproduction.
At one time, the consensus was that the Earth is flat, which was considered true within that historical context. How can we say that it was true then but is no longer true when nothing about the form and function of the earth and surrounding bodies has altered? External reality in this framework is bound up in the triviality of opinion, and historically establishing what is actually “true” is how we challenge trivially held positions.
Under this paradigm, what is true depends on who you include in the group by which you are measuring the consensus. In a sample of one, whatever you believe is automatically the truth, as we expand the boundary the measurement becomes more difficult. Another question you might ask is whether or not, under this paradigm, there is a perfect democracy, or should some people, perhaps those with the relevant expertise, count more than others? And might we also need to include the beliefs of possible alien intelligences, how would we measure these if we don't know about their existence?
If truth is a human-made construct that arises from our interpretations and understandings of the world, then how can we communicate about it with others who may have different interpretations and understandings? It seems difficult to have any meaningful discourse or exchange of ideas if there is no objective reality to ground our claims.
Scientific discoveries have been made throughout history that have challenged and even overturned our previous interpretations and understandings of the world. If truth is solely a product of our interpretations, then how can we explain the objective and replicable nature of scientific discoveries?
If truth is merely a linguistic convenience and there is no underlying nature or essence to truth, then how do we differentiate between true and false statements? Deflationary theorists would argue that saying a proposition is true is just to assert the proposition itself, but this does not provide criteria for distinguishing between true and false propositions.
If truth is merely a linguistic convenience, then is there any difference between asserting something and saying it is true? It seems that there must be some underlying criteria or justification for asserting something as true, otherwise the statement "it is true" would be meaningless.
Think for a moment:
Substance Dualism: This position, often associated with René Descartes, posits that the self is composed of two distinct substances: the mind (or soul) and the body. The mind is considered the true essence of the self, characterized by thoughts, beliefs, and consciousness, while the body is a separate, physical entity.
Materialism (Physicalism): According to this perspective, the self is reducible to physical matter and processes, such as brain activity and neural connections. Materialists argue that mental states, including consciousness and self-awareness, are products of complex physical systems, and there is no need to posit a separate mental substance or soul.
Psychological Continuity: This view emphasises the role of psychological factors, such as memory, personality, and mental states, in defining the self. According to this perspective, the self is a continuous psychological entity that persists over time, despite changes in the body and the environment. Continuity of memory and personal identity are central to this conception of the self.
Bundle Theory: Associated with David Hume, this position suggests that the self is not a single, unified entity but rather a bundle of perceptions, experiences, and mental states that are constantly changing. In this view, there is no stable, enduring self but rather a collection of psychological phenomena that give the illusion of a continuous, unified identity.
Social Constructionism: This perspective argues that the self is a product of social and cultural factors, including language, norms, values, and social interactions. According to this view, the self exists only as a construct of our relationships with others and the roles we play in society, rather than being an intrinsic, unchangable property of the individual.
Narrative Self: This position posits that the self is a story that we create and continuously revise throughout our lives. According to this perspective, our sense of self is shaped by the narrative we construct about our experiences, beliefs, goals, and relationships, which helps us make sense of our lives and create a coherent personal identity.
No-Self Theory: Found in some Eastern philosophical traditions, such as Buddhism, this view asserts that there is no permanent, unchanging self. Instead, the self is an impermanent, ever-changing collection of physical and mental processes. The idea of a stable, enduring self is seen as an illusion that contributes to suffering and attachment.
Descartes' famous phrase, "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), emphasizes the primacy of the mind in defining the self. However, modern neuroscience has shown that many mental processes are closely tied to brain activity and bodily functions. This connection challenges the idea of a separate, non-physical mind or soul as the essence of the self.
The problem of interaction in substance dualism refers to the challenge of explaining how the immaterial mind can interact with the physical brain. The issue here is that mental events are not reducible to physical events, yet they seem to influence the workings of the brain, which is a physical organ.
To solve this problem, substance dualism would need to either redefine our understanding of the physical to include a mechanism for interaction with the non-physical, or posit a third substance that serves as the point of interaction between the mind and body. However, this creates new problems, such as defining this third substance and how it relates to the mind and body.
As we delve deeper into this problem, we are faced with the inevitability of defining everything as either mental or material and, therefore, denying the existence of one or the other.
While materialism posits that consciousness and self-awareness are products of complex physical systems, it struggles to explain the subjective nature of conscious experience, known as the "hard problem of consciousness". That is that there is something “it is like” to be you or me, something that we do not attribute to mechanical processes. Under this definition, we cannot say that a clothes iron or a ballpoint pen do not have their own senses of self.
The explanatory gap refers to the impossibility of explaining subjective experiences through appeal to mechanical processes alone. Indeed the unique features of consciousness seem to resist reduction to any physical explanations. Additionally, as materialism can describe all observed phenomena through cause and effect without evoking a need for consciousness, it becomes a closed loop leaving phenomenal experience out altogether.
Materialism may also struggle to account for how mental events, such as beliefs and desires, can cause things to happen in the material world. If mental events are reducible to physical events in the brain, then how can they cause physical events outside of the brain, such as the movement of the arm?
People with amnesia or late-stage dementia often lose large portions of their memory, yet they still possess a sense of self and personal identity. Is there a certain degree to which someone can lose old memories or their ability to create new memories at which they stop having a self
If all your memories were copied and implanted into a “blank slate” brain, is that person equally you? What then if these two people with the same memories and experiences go off and lead completely different lives? Which one is you? The theory of psychological continuity does not appear to have an answer for this hypothetical scenario.
If we are merely a bundle of constantly changing mental states and factors, then it is unclear how we can account for a sense of stable identity that persists over time and allows us to recognise ourselves as the same person from one moment to the next.
If people are merely a bundle of selves and there is no single, unchanging self, then it may be difficult to justify holding a person accountable for their actions. No part of a person has executive control and can be deemed truly responsible.
If we are merely a collection of constantly changing mental states and factors, how can we explain the existence of a consistent sense of right and wrong that guides our behaviour? Conscience suggests that there is a stable and enduring moral compass within us that guides our actions and decisions, regardless of the shifting mental states and factors that make up our overall experience. This sense of right and wrong seems tied to a unified and stable sense of self that persists over time, rather than a constantly changing collection of mental states and factors.
The socially constructed view of the self requires as part of its premise that we are able to define the boundaries between individuals, i.e where we end and others begin. This is at the core of what the question “What is the self?” is trying to answer. This is a common fallacy called “begging the question,” when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it
Social constructionism suggests that if we weren’t embedded in societies and cultures, the self wouldn’t exist. Yet it seems as though our sense of self would persist in isolation through our own introspection and our ability to interact with the environment around us.
Some people may not have a fully formed narrative about themselves, or their narrative might change completely from one moment to the next. It may even be argued that connecting all your actions to a “self-narrative” is not good for mental well-being and character growth. Think for a moment, can you have a sense of self without reflecting on a personal narrative? Or, do those with amnesia lose their sense of self? If this were the case, how would they continue to behave according to their own wants and wishes?
The no-self theory challenges the idea of a stable and enduring self, which may conflict with the reality of personal identity and our experiences of being an individual with a sense of self. Individuals may struggle to make sense of their experiences and construct a coherent narrative about their lives without a stable sense of self.
The no-self theory challenges the idea of personal agency and responsibility, which may have practical implications in areas such as ethics, morality, and decision-making. It may be difficult to justify holding individuals accountable for their actions without a stable sense of self and personal identity. Additionally, it may lead to a sense of nihilism or apathy towards personal responsibility and the impact of one's actions.
Think for a moment.
Direct Realism (Naive Realism): This philosophical view holds that our perception of the world is reliable and provides direct, unmediated access to reality. According to this perspective, the objects and properties we perceive are precise as they appear, and our sensory experiences are accurate representations of the external world.
Indirect Realism (Representationalism): This perspective posits that our perception of the world is mediated by mental representations or internal models of external reality. While perception is generally reliable, it may not always perfectly reflect the external world. Indirect realism acknowledges the possibility of perceptual errors, illusions, or biases that can lead to inaccuracies in our understanding of the world.
Constructivism: This view emphasises that perception is an active process of constructing our experience of reality based on sensory input and prior knowledge, expectations, and beliefs. According to constructivism, our perception is not a passive reflection of the external world but rather a product of our cognitive processes. This perspective suggests that perception can be influenced by individual differences and cultural factors, which may affect its reliability.
Evolutionary Perspective: From an evolutionary standpoint, perception is considered a functional adaptation that has developed to help organisms navigate and survive in their environments. According to this view, the reliability of perception is shaped by its utility in promoting survival and reproduction. This perspective acknowledges that perception may not always provide an entirely accurate representation of the world, but it is generally reliable enough to support adaptive behaviours.
Cognitive Neuroscience: Research in cognitive neuroscience has shed light on the neural mechanisms underlying perception, revealing that perception is an intricate process involving multiple brain regions and complex interactions between sensory input, attention, memory, and cognitive processing. This research suggests that the reliability of perception depends on a variety of factors, including the quality of sensory input, the integrity of neural pathways, and individual differences in cognitive functioning.
Countless experiments have been able to show that the integration of the signals from our sensory inputs leads to approximations that in many cases, become untrustworthy representations of our environment. For instance, optical illusions like the Müller-Lyer illusion, where, two lines of equal length appear to be different lengths due to the orientation of arrow-like segments at their ends.
Representationalism says that our minds create internal models of the world around us. But how can we know if these models are accurate? To check if our models are correct, we would need to create more mental models to compare them. This creates a never-ending cycle of models, making it impossible to know if our perception is accurate. Think about it like this: imagine trying to decide if a photo is accurate by comparing it to another photo, and then comparing that photo to another photo, and so on - you would never be able to tell if any of the photos are truly accurate.
Representationalism doesn't explain how our mental models turn into conscious experiences. For example, we know that we have mental models of objects like chairs, but how does this mental model become the experience of seeing and sitting on a chair? The theory doesn't provide a clear answer to this question.
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein raised a challenge called the "Private Language Argument." If our perceptions are based only on our personal mental models, how can we explain the way we communicate and understand each other's experiences? If our mental models are unique to each of us, how can we share our experiences with others and understand what they are trying to tell us about their own experiences?
Imagine you and a friend are looking at a painting. You both have your own mental models of the painting, based on your perceptions. You might describe the painting as having bright, vivid colours, while your friend might describe it as having softer, more muted colours. If your mental models are unique and private to each of you, how can you be sure that you're both talking about the same painting and not just describing your own individual perceptions?
One challenge to constructivism is the question of how we can have objective perceptions of the world if our perceptions are influenced by our experiences and beliefs. If two people perceive the same event or object differently due to their individual backgrounds, how can we determine whose perception is more accurate, or if there even is a "correct" perception? For example, imagine two people looking at an optical illusion. One person sees the illusion, while the other doesn't. How do we decide whose perception is more accurate?
Constructivism struggles to explain how infants and young children can perceive the world accurately before they have had many experiences to shape their perceptions. If our perceptions are constructed based on our experiences, how do infants and young children make sense of the world around them? Think about a baby who can recognize their mother's face - how do they do this if they don't yet have many experiences to build their perceptions?
Another challenge to constructivism is the fact that people often share similar perceptions despite having different experiences and backgrounds. If our perceptions are built from our individual experiences, why do we often agree on what we perceive? For example, imagine a group of people looking at a landscape. Even though each person has different experiences, they might
The evolutionary perspective of perception assumes that our perceptual abilities have evolved to help us survive in our environment. However, this assumption may not hold up in cases where our environment changes faster than our ability to adapt. For example, humans are not well adapted to modern technologies like cars or computers, which can lead to accidents or errors in perception. This suggests that our perceptual abilities may have limits and cannot always keep up with changes in our environment.
If our cognitive faculties, including perception, have evolved for survival purposes, without necessarily representing the external environment, then our perceptions would be incredibly context-dependent to the survival situation. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that It seems unlikely in this case that we could have ended up with cognitive faculties that are generalisable and reliable enough for us to have attained the capacity for logical reasoning and the observation of universal laws.
The Cognitive Neuroscience view of perception focuses on the neural mechanisms underlying perception. However, it doesn't provide a clear explanation for why perception goes hand in hand with conscious experience.
Qualia refers to the qualities of perception that lie completely within our minds and can't be deduced from knowledge about our environment, such as the sensation of pain, the taste of chocolate, or the colour red.
Imagine a person who has never tasted chocolate before, but has read a detailed scientific description of its chemical composition and flavour profile. Despite this knowledge, they cannot truly understand the subjective experience of what it is like to taste chocolate until they actually try it for themselves. These experiences are subjective and cannot be fully explained in terms of physical processes alone.