Editing Epistemology (section)

== Branches and approaches ==
Some branches of epistemology are characterized by their research methods. [[Formal epistemology]] employs formal tools from logic and mathematics to investigate the nature of knowledge.<ref>{{harvnb|Douven|Schupbach|2014|loc=Lead section}}</ref>{{efn|It is closely related to [[computational epistemology]], which examines the interrelation between knowledge and computational processes.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Segura|2009|pp=557–558}} | {{harvnb|Hendricks|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Bjnje5u2q9cC&pg=PA115 115]}} }}</ref>}} For example, [[Bayesian epistemology]] represents beliefs as degrees of certainty and uses [[probability theory]] to formally define norms of [[rationality]] governing how certain people should be.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Titelbaum|2022|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=AiFnEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3, 31–32]}} | {{harvnb|Cozic|2018|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=RCxhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68 Confirmation and Induction]}} }}</ref> [[Experimental philosophy#Epistemology|Experimental epistemologists]] base their research on empirical evidence about common knowledge practices.<ref>{{harvnb|Beebe|2017|loc=Lead section}}</ref> [[Applied epistemology]] focuses on the practical application of epistemological principles to diverse real-world problems, like the reliability of knowledge claims on the internet, how to assess [[sexual assault]] allegations, and how [[racism]] may lead to [[epistemic injustice]].<ref>{{harvnb|Lackey|2021|pp=3, 8–9, 13}}</ref>{{efn|Epistemic injustice happens, for example, when valid knowledge claims are dismissed or misrepresented.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Fricker|2007|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Crichton|Carel|Kidd|2017|pp=65–66}} }}</ref>}} [[Metaepistemology|Metaepistemologists]] study the nature, goals, and research methods of epistemology. As a [[metatheory]], it does not directly advocate for specific epistemological theories but examines their fundamental concepts and background assumptions.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gerken|2018|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2019|pp=1–2}} }}</ref>{{efn|Nonetheless, metaepistemological insights can have various indirect effects on disputes in epistemology.<ref>{{harvnb|Gerken|2018|loc=Lead section}}</ref>}}

Particularism and generalism disagree about the right [[Philosophical methodology|method of conducting epistemological research]]. Particularists start their inquiry by looking at specific cases. For example, to find a definition of knowledge, they rely on their intuitions about concrete instances of knowledge and particular thought experiments. They use these observations as methodological constraints that any theory of general principles needs to follow. Generalists proceed in the opposite direction. They prioritize general epistemic principles, saying that it is not possible to accurately identify and describe specific cases without a grasp of these principles.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Greco|2021|loc=§ 1. Methodology in Epistemology: Particularism and Generalism}} | {{harvnb|Lemos|2005|pp=488–489}} | {{harvnb|Dancy|2010|pp=532–533}} }}</ref> Other methods in contemporary epistemology aim to extract [[Ordinary language philosophy|philosophical insights from ordinary language]] or look at the role of knowledge in making assertions and guiding actions.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Greco|2021|loc=§ 2. Methodology in Epistemology: Beyond Particularism}} | {{harvnb|Gardiner|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=xn2ECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA31 31, 33–35]}} }}</ref>

[[Phenomenology (philosophy)|Phenomenological]] epistemology emphasizes the importance of first-person experience. It distinguishes between the natural and the phenomenological attitudes. The natural attitude focuses on objects belonging to common sense and natural science. The phenomenological attitude focuses on the experience of objects and aims to provide a presuppositionless description of how objects appear to the observer.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Pietersma|2000|pp=3–4}} | {{harvnb|Howarth|1998|loc=§ Article Summary}} }}</ref>

[[Naturalized epistemology]] is closely associated with the [[natural sciences]], relying on their methods and theories to examine knowledge. Arguing that epistemological theories should rest on empirical observation, it is critical of ''a priori'' reasoning.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crumley II|2009|pp=183–184, 188–189, 300}} | {{harvnb|Wrenn|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Rysiew|2021|loc=§ 2. 'Epistemology Naturalized'}} }}</ref> [[Evolutionary epistemology]] is a naturalistic approach that understands cognition as a product of [[evolution]], examining knowledge and the cognitive faculties responsible for it through the lens of [[natural selection]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bradie|Harms|2023|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Gontier|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> [[Social epistemology]] focuses on the social dimension of knowledge. While traditional epistemology is mainly interested in the knowledge possessed by individuals, social epistemology covers knowledge acquisition, transmission, and evaluation within groups, with specific emphasis on how people rely on each other when seeking knowledge.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Tanesini|2017|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|O’Connor|Goldberg|Goldman|2024|loc=Lead section, § 1. What Is Social Epistemology?}} }}</ref>

[[Pragmatism|Pragmatist]] epistemology is a form of fallibilism that emphasizes the close relation between knowing and acting. It sees the pursuit of knowledge as an ongoing process guided by common sense and experience while always open to revision. This approach reinterprets some core epistemological notions, for example, by conceptualizing beliefs as habits that shape actions rather than representations that mirror the world.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Legg|Hookway|2021|loc=Lead section, § 4. Pragmatist Epistemology}} | {{harvnb|Kelly|Cordeiro|2020|p=1}} }}</ref> Motivated by pragmatic considerations, [[epistemic conservatism]] is a view about [[belief revision]]. It prioritizes pre-existing beliefs, asserting that a person should only change their beliefs if they have a good reason to. One argument for epistemic conservatism rests on the recognition that the cognitive resources of humans are limited, making it impractical to constantly reexamine every belief.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Foley|1983|p=165}} | {{harvnb|Vahid|loc=Lead section, § 1. Doxastic Conservatism: The Debate, § 2. Varieties of Doxastic Conservatism}} }}</ref>

[[File:Elizabeth Anderson, philosopher (cropped).jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a woman with glasses and long hair wearing a green blouse|The work of [[Elizabeth S. Anderson]] combines the perspectives of feminist, social, and naturalized epistemology.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Clough|McHugh|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=NBcHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA177 177]}} | {{harvnb|Grasswick|2018|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>|left]]

[[Postmodern]] epistemology critiques the conditions of knowledge in advanced societies. This concerns in particular the [[metanarrative]] of a constant progress of scientific knowledge leading to a universal and foundational understanding of reality.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sharpe|2018|pp=318–319}} | {{harvnb|Best|Kellner|1991|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vZBKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165 165]}} }}</ref> Similarly, [[feminist]] epistemology adopts a critical perspective, focusing on the effect of [[gender]] on knowledge. Among other topics, it explores how preconceptions about gender influence who has access to knowledge, how knowledge is produced, and which types of knowledge are valued in society.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Anderson|1995|p=50}} | {{harvnb|Anderson|2024|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> Some postmodern and feminist thinkers adopt a [[Constructivism (philosophy of science)|constructivist]] approach, arguing that the way people view the world is not a simple reflection of external reality but a social construction. This view emphasizes the creative role of interpretation while undermining objectivity since social constructions can vary across societies.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Chiari|Nuzzo|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=CrqNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA21 21]}} | {{harvnb|Crumley II|2009|pp=215–216, 301}} | {{harvnb|Warren|2002|p=83}} }}</ref> Another critical approach, found in decolonial scholarship, opposes the global influence of Western knowledge systems. It seeks to undermine Western hegemony and [[Decolonization of knowledge|decolonize knowledge]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Lee|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZtArDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT67 67]}} | {{harvnb|Dreyer|2017|pp=1–7}} }}</ref>

The decolonial outlook is also present in [[African epistemology]]. Grounded in African [[ontology]], it emphasizes the interconnectedness of reality as a [[Continuum (measurement)|continuum]] between knowing subject and known object. It understands knowledge as a [[Holism|holistic]] phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational aspects, extending beyond the limits of the physical domain.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Chimakonam|Ogbonnaya|2021|pp=175–176, 179–182}} | {{harvnb|Jimoh|2017|pp=121–122}} }}</ref>

Another epistemological tradition is found in ancient [[Indian philosophy]]. Its diverse [[Āstika and nāstika|schools of thought]] examine different sources of knowledge, called {{lang|sa-Latn|[[pramāṇa]]}}. [[Pratyaksha|Perception]], inference, and [[Shabda|testimony]] are sources discussed by most schools. Other sources only considered by some schools are [[Anupalabdhi|non-perception]], which leads to knowledge of absences, and presumption.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Phillips|1998|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Phillips|Vaidya|2024|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Bhatt|Mehrotra|2017|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=D4kwEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12 12–13]}} }}</ref>{{efn|While the discussion of different sources of knowledge is also found in other traditions, Indian epistemologists typically put special emphasis on the relation between knowledge and [[Spirituality|spiritual]] progress, understanding the acquisition of knowledge as part of the [[Soteriology|soteriological]] process.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Forsthoefel|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WN_LEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA164 164]}} | {{harvnb|Steup|Neta|2024|loc=§ 5. Sources of Knowledge and Justification}} }}</ref>}} [[Buddhist]] epistemology focuses on immediate experience, understood as the presentation of unique [[particular]]s without secondary cognitive processes, like thought and desire.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Phillips|1998|loc=§ 1. Buddhist Pragmatism and Coherentism}} | {{harvnb|Siderits|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=YzhCEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA332 332]}} }}</ref> [[Nyāya]] epistemology is a causal theory of knowledge, understanding sources of knowledge as reliable processes that cause episodes of truthful awareness. It sees perception as the primary source of knowledge and emphasizes its importance for successful action.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Phillips|1998|loc=§ 2. Nyāya Reliabilism}} | {{harvnb|Dasti|loc=Lead section, § 1.f.i. A Causal Theory of Knowledge}} }}</ref> [[Mīmāṃsā]] epistemology considers the holy scriptures known as the [[Vedas]] as a key source of knowledge, addressing the problem of their right interpretation.<ref>{{harvnb|Phillips|1998|loc=§ 2. Mīmāṃsā Self-certificationalism}}</ref> [[Jain epistemology]] states that reality is [[Anekantavada|many-sided]], meaning that no single viewpoint can capture the entirety of truth.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Webb|loc=§ 2. Epistemology and Logic}} | {{harvnb|Sethia|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QYdlKv8wBiYC&pg=PA93 93]}} }}</ref>

[[Historical epistemology]] examines how the understanding of knowledge and related concepts has changed over time. It asks whether the main issues in epistemology are perennial and to what extent past epistemological theories are relevant to contemporary debates. It is particularly concerned with scientific knowledge and practices associated with it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ávila|Almeida|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=sFTaEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA235 235]}} | {{harvnb|Vermeir|2013|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=hKqCD5U_ba8C&pg=PA65 65–66]}} | {{harvnb|Sturm|2011|pp=303–304, 306, 308}} }}</ref> It contrasts with the history of epistemology, which presents, reconstructs, and evaluates epistemological theories of philosophers in the past.<ref>{{harvnb|Sturm|2011|pp=303–304, 08–309}}</ref>{{efn|The precise characterization of the contrast is disputed.<ref>{{harvnb|Sturm|2011|p=304}}</ref>}}

=== Knowledge in particular domains ===
Some branches of epistemology focus on knowledge within specific academic disciplines. The [[epistemology of science]] examines how scientific knowledge is generated and what problems arise in the process of validating, justifying, and interpreting scientific claims. A key issue concerns the problem of how [[Problem of induction|individual observations can support universal scientific laws]]. Other topics include the nature of scientific evidence and the aims of science.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|McCain|Kampourakis|2019|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wlAPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR13 xiii–xiv]}} | {{harvnb|Bird|2010|p=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/40801354 5]}} | {{harvnb|Merritt|2020|pp=[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/philosophical-approach-to-mond/epistemology-of-science/065BF49E6DE64BA37364BA90542815D0 1–2]}} }}</ref> The epistemology of mathematics studies the origin of mathematical knowledge. In exploring how mathematical theories are justified, it investigates the role of proofs and whether there are empirical sources of mathematical knowledge.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Murawski|2004|pp=571–572}} | {{harvnb|Sierpinska|Lerman|1996|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_23 827–828]}} }}</ref>

Distinct areas of epistemology are dedicated to specific sources of knowledge. Examples are the epistemology of perception,<ref>{{harvnb|Siegel|Silins|Matthen|2014|p=781}}</ref> the epistemology of memory,<ref>{{harvnb|Conee|1998|loc=Lead section}}</ref> and the [[epistemology of testimony]].<ref>{{harvnb|Pritchard|2004|p=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3050633 326]}}</ref> In the epistemology of perception, [[Direct and indirect realism|direct and indirect realists]] debate the connection between the perceiver and the perceived object. Direct realists say that this connection is direct, meaning that there is no difference between the object present in perceptual experience and the physical object causing this experience. According to indirect realism, the connection is indirect, involving mental entities, like ideas or sense data, that mediate between the perceiver and the external world. The contrast between direct and indirect realism is important for explaining the nature of [[illusion]]s.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Brown|1992|p=341}} | {{harvnb|Crumley II|2009|pp=268–269, 277–278, 300–301}} }}</ref>

Epistemological issues are found in most areas of philosophy. The [[epistemology of logic]] examines how people know that an [[argument]] is [[Validity (logic)|valid]]. For example, it explores how logicians justify that [[modus ponens]] is a correct [[rule of inference]] or that all [[contradictions]] are false.<ref>{{harvnb|Warren|2020|loc=§ 6. The Epistemology of Logic}}</ref> [[Epistemology of metaphysics|Epistemologists of metaphysics]] investigate whether knowledge of the basic structure of reality is possible and what sources this knowledge could have.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|McDaniel|2020|loc=§ 7.2 The Epistemology of Metaphysics}} | {{harvnb|Van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=§ 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?}} }}</ref> Knowledge of moral statements, like the claim that lying is wrong, belongs to the [[epistemology of ethics]]. It studies the role of [[Ethical intuitionism|ethical intuitions]], [[Coherentism|coherence]] among moral beliefs, and the problem of moral disagreement.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|DeLapp|loc=Lead section, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics}} | {{harvnb|Sayre-McCord|2023|loc=§ 5. Moral Epistemology}} }}</ref> The [[ethics of belief]] is a closely related field exploring the intersection of epistemology and [[ethics]]. It examines the norms governing belief formation and asks whether violating them is morally wrong.<ref>{{harvnb|Chignell|2018|loc=Lead section}}</ref> [[Religious epistemology]] studies the role of knowledge and justification for religious doctrines and practices. It evaluates the reliability of evidence from [[religious experience]] and [[Religious text|holy scriptures]] while also asking whether the norms of reason should be applied to religious [[faith]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|McNabb|2019|pp=1–3, 22–23}} | {{harvnb|Howard-Snyder|McKaughan|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=M5LTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96 96–97]}} }}</ref>

Epistemologists of language explore the nature of linguistic knowledge. One of their topics is the role of tacit knowledge, for example, when native speakers have mastered the rules of [[grammar]] but are unable to explicitly articulate them.<ref>{{harvnb|Barber|2003|pp=1–3, 10–11, 15}}</ref> Epistemologists of modality examine knowledge about what is possible and necessary.<ref>{{harvnb|Vaidya|Wallner|2021|pp=1909–1910}}</ref> Epistemic problems that arise when two people have diverging opinions on a topic are covered by the epistemology of disagreement.<ref>{{harvnb|Croce|2023|loc=Lead section}}</ref> Epistemologists of ignorance are interested in epistemic faults and gaps in knowledge.<ref>{{harvnb|Maguire|2015|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-9309-4_4 33–34]}}</ref>