PRACTICE IN USING EPISTEMOLOGIES
This section on Epistemology covers the three archetypes of knowing, namely Empiricism, Rationalism, and Constructivism. Having read through them first (each covered in a page), then try some of the following suggestions (or do similar things that will also illustrate the desired points): Take any one of the postulates and apply it to an issue of interest to you. The issue might occur in a media story, in a book or magazine you read, in a conversation you have, or in a presentation you attend.
In the case of Empiricism, ask yourself “What evidence is presented to support the facts or theories or conclusions or propositions presented?” How was the evidence acquired? Who can vouch for it? Is the evidence accurately reported [how do you know]? Is the evidence plausible? Is the evidence credible? Again, in any case, how do you know? How does the source know about the viability of any of this evidence? It is conceivable that a particular instance of evidence can meet all of the standards of good collecting and reporting that one could hope for – but in the vast majority of cases, not likely! So instead, there is some interpretation and some hype involved in the presentation. Whatever evidence is used may be for limited numbers of cases, over a short period of time, in situations where other intervening variables are operating. So, be a little skeptical, and don’t “bet the farm” until you have multiple, independent, cross-confirming sources for the evidence presented. Let this be a rule for any claims of evidence that you personally have not examined and verified. There are a hundred-and-one ways that evidence can be messaged, with virtually no traces left of who had their hands in it!
In the case of Rationalism, ask yourself “What concepts are included in the construct (theory, principle, proposition) being presented?” Are the concepts being used complementary to one another, or contradictory? Are the definitions of terms conventional or esoteric? Are the steps in the thinking process arranged in a credible sequence, or was something left out, or something else arbitrarily included? Often there is hype in these presentations too, consisting of the claim that some argument proves some conclusion which infers some other point and implies some action on your part! These claims are often convoluted and a little baffling. So your best response is to say “I’ll think about it.” Arguments are usually staged to either get your agreement or your action, which on further thought you may not want. So ask yourself (or your interlocutor) “What does it matter whether “the argument” is correct or incorrect?” If it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter! If it does matter, clarify what is at stake in “the bottom line.”
In the case of Constructivism, ask yourself “Is some other juxtaposition of concepts, or principles, or theories, etc. just as credible?” Usually the answer is yes – that is, some other idea has also been invented which could just as easily express or explain as the one being proposed.
In many cases you can still use the concepts or terminology being suggested, but keep it clear in the back of your mind that alternatives exist, and these alternatives may also be useful at some point. Most constructs only cover part of the data, or emphasize part of a problem or situation. Other constructs may cover other parts of the date, or prioritize other aspects of interest.
Next, take an issue and try all three epistemologies on it. See how the “look and feel” changes as each of the different epistemologies is applied to it. It all depends on your perspective.