Please read this post for background on this discussion.
We are talking about sorting through our beliefs in an effort to keep the true ones and throw out the false ones. We need a system to do this.
To do this, we need to answer two questions.
Question A. What is the extent of our knowledge?
Question B. What is the criteria of our knowledge?
Stated differently … what is that we claim to know … and what is the criteria we used to determine that we know it. If we can successfully answer these two questions, we can sort through our beliefs and add to our knowledge and hopefully gain wisdom while we are it.
But wait. Do you see the problem? We are looking at infinite loop. To answer question A, we need to have a grip on question B. But to answer question B, we need to answer question A. Hmmm. We end up chasing our tails. In the database world in which I live, we call this situation a deadly embrace. Kind of dramatic wording , but it gets the point across.
Now you know what the problem of the criterion is … we need knowledge in order to know if we really know anything … but can we have knowledge without knowing how we know things?
If this makes no sense, go back and re-read it and think about it a while. Now, how do we solve this deadly embrace?
Chisolm suggested there are three approaches.
One, throw your hands in the air and concede that no knowledge is ever possible. He calls this approach skepticism. As I discussed in post one, this approach sux.
Two, we can answer question B first. We set up the criteria first. Then we test our knowledge against the criteria. If it passes the criteria, we accept it. If it fails, we reject it. Is this cheating? To be blunt … yes. You have to make some assumptions about criteria to be able to do this. Your assumptions better be rock solid if you are going to get a free pass on this approach. Chisolm labeled this approach methodism. Don't confuse it with the John Wesley kind of methodism. It is not that. This is not a denomination we are talking about.
John Locke, the English philosopher, was a methodist in his approach to knowledge. He suggested that we start with sense experience. We can all agree that we have sense experiences and they are generally reliable, right? Why not rely on those?
For example, I am looking out a window right now and I see a tree. It is brown. It has branches. It has no leaves, at the moment. I could go touch it to see if it is hard. I could go examine it closely and see if I can find any sap leaking out of it. I can set up all sorts of criteria using my senses. If it passes all of these tests, then I can add one new nugget of propositional knowledge to my knowledge database … that there is indeed a tree outside of my window.
This approach is quite popular in today's world. This approach to knowledge is held by many in the scientific community. It is also quite flawed. Perhaps you already know why. If you want, take a stab at resolving it in the comments section.
I will unpack why in tomorrow's post. Once you see why methodism sux, you will hopefully agree that we need a better approach to knowledge that trumps these two inferior approaches. Chisolm proposed a third way.