Justifying belief and what is knowledge’s nature and scope is well defined by the philosophical stance of “naturalized epistemology” in that knowledge comes from the empirical sciences though it’s application of theory, methods and results. Knowledge comes from proving things. This is different from the classical foundationalism which asserts the need to basic belief from which other beliefs can be built on. This essay will discuss the distinctiveness of naturalized epistemology, then how it differs from classical foundationalism and conclude with why it is referable. It should be noted that both systems of knowledge have many variations and so this short essay is more a general discussion.
Naturalized epistemology has its basis in practicality and although it is not “truths” it is based on the accuracy of empirical knowledge that allows all organisms (thereby also including humans) to complete the current task. It becomes obvious that perfect truth is wasteful of time and resources, and dangerous as in the classic case of not avoiding a bush that might have a tiger until one is sure. Epistemology although coined by James Frederick Ferrier is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and Justified belief. So it is the practicality that this form of knowledge that is gathered both …show more content…
From its own study the main accepted argument against naturalized epistemology, as proven by the mathematician Kurt Godel, is that systems built on empirical consistencies are subject to incompleteness, but that does not prevent their usefulness (Churchland 2002). This can be countered by example of that even though Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Einsteinian physics the former is still valid enough to send satellites into space but not for GPS data
Naturalized epistemology has its basis in practicality and although it is not “truths” it is based on the accuracy of empirical knowledge that allows all organisms (thereby also including humans) to complete the current task. It becomes obvious that perfect truth is wasteful of time and resources, and dangerous as in the classic case of not avoiding a bush that might have a tiger until one is sure. Epistemology although coined by James Frederick Ferrier is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and Justified belief. So it is the practicality that this form of knowledge that is gathered both …show more content…
From its own study the main accepted argument against naturalized epistemology, as proven by the mathematician Kurt Godel, is that systems built on empirical consistencies are subject to incompleteness, but that does not prevent their usefulness (Churchland 2002). This can be countered by example of that even though Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Einsteinian physics the former is still valid enough to send satellites into space but not for GPS data