Uncharted Knowledge

People often ask what the meaning of life is, and there is no shortage of people who will give you their interpretation or their belief as to what that meaning is or how to find it.  The question itself however represents one of many questions in life that make up a field of study known as Epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and the distinction between that which can be proven and that which is opinion.  These are topics I have touched on quite a few times here in my writings, particularly when talking about the distinction between objective and subjective truth.  Epistemology on the other hand goes much deeper than this and involves the structured analysis of knowledge in such a way that empiricism is irrelevant.  Empiricism is a theory that knowledge can only be determined as valid if the proof for it can be experienced, usually through the five senses but other experiences can be incorporated.  Epistemology on the other hand does not concern itself with whether or not a belief can be empirically proven, rather whether or not that belief can be justified.

There is a very important line you have to draw between justification and evidence, the former is a belief that leads to something material as a result, the latter is something material that leads to a belief as a result.  Whilst these are similar concepts they have very different characterisations of validity and the concept of proof.  Within Epistemology it is sufficient for example that every logical argument for a position can be agreed, whereas empiricism requires not only logic and reason but evidence to back up those claims.

Epistemology can accept negative beliefs, the argument that X does not exist because there is no evidence of X and no reason to believe that it exists.  Empiricism on the other hand cannot accept negative beliefs as inherently they can never be proven, just as within the scientific method you cannot assert a negative as true as lack of evidence does not constitute evidence, and empiricism requires evidence.

Without referring to these concepts by their names or the fields of study they interact with, we do incorporate this distinction into our everyday life.  Beyond grand philosophical questions such as the nature of being, there are simpler pragmatic questions that arise day to day.  Wherever we must complete a task without instruction and without reference, we rely on epistemology to be able to determine a course of action and to make judgements.  We use prior experience and we use truths that we know even when they are not conducive to our goal, to create a foundation to work with.  If we were to rely solely on empiricism in our day to day lives then whenever we are faced with a task we have never completed before, we would not be able to progress.  We would need references, or guidance, or similar prior experience to guide us and inform us how to act.

With epistemology we can judge our individual actions that we could take in an attempt to experiment and take a stab in the dark to try and discover a solution.  This can perhaps be explained better by saying that Epistemology is supportive of an attempt to undertake a task without experience and discover as you go, forming new beliefs and evaluating them after the fact.  This would be the idea of "winging it" as we go the first time, figuring out what works, and then documenting it afterwards.  Through this process you let what you already know guide you, and what you can use logic and reason to predict.  This is akin to forming hypotheses based on what your assumptions would be, testing them, and then documenting the result but with much less forethought.

With empiricism on the other hand you would attempt to write a rulebook first, find similar experiences and draw conclusions based on those prior experiences, and use those to formulate hypotheses before you experiment.  You then conduct the experiments, record the results, and compare them against prior evidence and establish causation or correlation.

The difference between the two is that the former lacks research before experimentation, instead relying on personal experience and belief, in an effort to create new research.  The latter on the other hand requires research before experimentation and relies on previous experiments and their conclusions in order to form new research that extends the existing.

Epistemology is undoubtedly the riskier path as it involves the exploration of unfounded beliefs and experimentation with concepts you do not fully understand.  Empiricism is undoubtedly the safest path by contrast as it involves extension of knowledge and informed experimentation using concepts that you already have an understanding of in order to predict the result more accurately.

In terms of which of these approaches I would favour and which I would say is more common, I would argue that Epistemology is more prevalent.  I would also argue that it is more useful in the long term.  There is little point in carrying out experiments you already know the outcome of before you do them, nor is there much point to reinforcing existing knowledge when it is already widely accepted.  Empiricism is in this regard an inward study that seeks to root out that which is flawed within existing knowledge to purify it, whereas Epistemology is an outward study that seeks to incorporate as much new information as it can no matter how relevant or irrelevant.  Arguably some of the greatest advances in human technology came about through accidental discoveries for example the discovery of Penicillin which came about by chance.

Rule books, guides, and references are important in life but experimentation and spontaneity are equally as vital.  Whenever you have the opportunity to pursue a goal or achieve a task without any help or prior research to use as a foundation, recognise the opportunity to be the one to write the rule book, the one to figure things out, and document your experience.  Be a pioneer.