Filter #1

Welcome, truth seeker !

In the epistemological beginning was assumption.

I assume that you agree with the following:

  1.  You can't know more than your epistemology allows you to know.  The best epistemology allows you to know all that is knowable, without allowing you to think you know anything you don't know.
If you don't agree with 1, there's no point in continuing.

  2.  Objective reality exists, though some of it may not be as it appears.
  3.  Objective truth exists.
  4.  Objective truth describes objective reality - i.e.  that a thing either:
is what it is precisely,
approximates what it approximates within a given tolerance,
appears to be what it appears to be, relative to a given viewpoint.
  5.  Some objective truth is knowable.
  6.  Knowledge exists.
  7.  Some knowable truth can be expressed as declarative statements.
  8.  Some declarative statements are objectively true.
e.g.  "2 + 2 = 4" is precisely true.
"The Earth is spherical" is approximately true within 5% tolerance.
"The sky is blue" appears to be true when viewed from Earth.
If you don't agree with 2 through 8, you have no epistemic justification for making any declarative statement, including the fact of your disagreement.
As a truth seeker you are self-thwarting.  You seek something that either doesn't exist, or if existent, can't be found, or if found, can't be recognized, or if recognized, can't be stated.

  9.  Any rational declarative statement is a knowledge claim.
10.  If you say you know nothing, you claim to know you know nothing, which is self refuting.
11.  If you say you think you know nothing, you claim to know what you think.
12.  If you say it is your opinion that you think know nothing, you claim to know what your opinion is.
13.  If you say, "I have nothing but opinions including this statement," you have not made a rational declarative statement.  As a knowledge claim, it is self-refuting.  As an opinion, its very existence as a statement is based on an infinite regression of "maybe"s.
14.  Even if you somehow communicate the idea that you know nothing, you would prove only that you're not worth talking or listening to - at least in any conversation related to truth seeking.
If you don't agree with 9 through 14, you've shot off both feet up to your knees.  Put down the gun, and click the left pointing arrow in the upper left corner.  Bye.

15.  Propositional communication is possible only when the communicators agree on definitions and syntax.
16.  If the definition of a term requires definitions of the terms used in it, the result is either circular or infinitely protracted definitions.
17.  Depending on the context in which a term is used, it may need to be defined more precisely.
18.  There exists a degree of precision, which if exceeded, diminishes communication.
If you don't agree with 15 through 18, I'll keep asking you to define the terms of your disagreement until you get it.

19.  The fact that a definition is unsatisfying does not mean that definition is flawed.
If you don't agree with 19, you're basing epistemology on emotion, which is incorrect.

20.  If I know a statement is true, I have epistemic justification to say it, even if I can't prove it.
You may not agree with 20, but you deny your own epistemic right to say it's false, unless you can prove it.
(20 doesn't mean I have moral justification to say it, which is a different issue.)

21.  Truth seekers always clarify.  Ego defenders clarify when they're right and obfuscate when they're wrong.
If you don't agree with 21, you just like to argue for the fun of it.

If you're offended by anything on this page, you deserve to be offended for impersonating a truth seeker, while denying the means by which truth can be known.  Go away.

But don't go away mad.  Have a joke.

An epistemic nihilist walked into a bar - that is, he would have if he had a leg to stand on.

If you're not offended, please proceed.


the study of knowledge, and how things are known
objective epistemology:  the rules governing how things are known
subjective epistemology:  a person's chosen rules governing what things he claims to know

as opposed to

ontology:  the study of being, and what things are


axiology:  the study of values, what matters, and why


Or to see this definition in context, go here.


necessary assumption:
an assumption that must be made because a mind is compelled to make it
Seeking truth includes an effort to distinguish necessary from unnecessary assumption, which is to distinguish compelled from chosen assumption.

Yes, that's tautological, but it's my best shot.  See essay
If you have a better definition, email me.


Or to see this definition in context, go here.



epistemic justification:
1.  sufficient foundation to support:
    a.  the existence of knowledge
    b.  the existence of a particular type of knowledge
2.  sufficient reason:
    a.  to believe a proposition is true
    b.  to know a proposition is true


Or to see this definition in context, go here.