Hacking started his teaching career as an instructor at Princeton University in 1960 but, after just one year, moved to the University of Virginia as an assistant professor. After working as a research fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge
from 1962 to 1964, he taught at his alma mater, UBC, first as an
assistant professor and later as an associate professor from 1964 to
1969. He became a lecturer at Cambridge, again a member of Peterhouse,
in 1969 before moving to Stanford University in 1974. After teaching for several years at Stanford, he spent a year at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Bielefeld, Germany, from 1982 to 1983. Hacking was promoted to Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto in 1983 and University Professor, the highest honour the University of Toronto bestows on faculty, in 1991. From 2000 to 2006, he held the Chair of Philosophy and History of Scientific Concepts at the Collège de France. Hacking is the first Anglophone to be elected to a permanent chair in the Collège's history. After retiring from the Collège de France, Hacking was a professor of philosophy at UC Santa Cruz, from 2008 to 2010. He concluded his teaching career in 2011 as a visiting professor at the University of Cape Town.
Hacking was married three times: his first two marriages, to Laura Anne Leach and fellow philosopher Nancy Cartwright,
ended in divorce. His third marriage, to Judith Baker, also a
philosopher, lasted until her death in 2014. He had two daughters and a
son, as well as one stepson.
Hacking died from heart failure at a retirement home in Toronto on May 10, 2023, at the age of 87.
Philosophical work
Influenced by debates involving Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend and others, Hacking is known for bringing a historical approach to the philosophy of science. The fourth edition (2010) of Feyerabend's 1975 book Against Method, and the 50th anniversary edition (2012) of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions include an Introduction by Hacking. He is sometimes described as a member of the "Stanford School" in philosophy of science, a group that also includes John Dupré, Nancy Cartwright and Peter Galison. Hacking himself identified as a Cambridge analytic philosopher. Hacking was a main proponent of a realism about science called "entity realism." This form of realism encourages a realistic stance towards answers to
the scientific unknowns hypothesized by mature sciences (of the future),
but skepticism towards current scientific theories. Hacking has also
been influential in directing attention to the experimental and even
engineering practices of science, and their relative autonomy from
theory. Because of this, Hacking moved philosophical thinking a step
further than the initial historical, but heavily theory-focused, turn of
Kuhn and others.
After 1990, Hacking shifted his focus somewhat from the natural
sciences to the human sciences, partly under the influence of the work
of Michel Foucault. Foucault was an influence as early as 1975 when Hacking wrote Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy? and The Emergence of Probability.
In the latter book, Hacking proposed that the modern schism between
subjective or personalistic probability, and the long-run frequency
interpretation, emerged in the early modern era as an epistemological "break" involving two incompatible models of uncertainty and chance. As history, the idea of a sharp break has been criticized, but competing 'frequentist' and 'subjective' interpretations of probability still remain today. Foucault's approach to knowledge systems
and power is also reflected in Hacking's work on the historical
mutability of psychiatric disorders and institutional roles for
statistical reasoning in the 19th century, his focus in The Taming of Chance (1990) and other writings. He labels his approach to the human sciences transcendental nominalism (also dynamic nominalism or dialectical realism), a historicised form of nominalism
that traces the mutual interactions over time between the phenomena of
the human world and our conceptions and classifications of them.
In Mad Travelers (1998) Hacking provided a historical account of the effects of a medical condition known as fugue
in the late 1890s. Fugue, also known as "mad travel," is a diagnosable
type of insanity in which European men would walk in a trance for
hundreds of miles without knowledge of their identities.
Awards and lectures
In 2002, Hacking was awarded the first Killam Prize for the Humanities, Canada's most distinguished award for outstanding career achievements. He was made a Companion of the Order of Canada (CC) in 2004. Hacking was appointed visiting professor at University of California, Santa Cruz for the Winters of 2008 and 2009. On August 25, 2009, Hacking was named winner of the Holberg International Memorial Prize, a Norwegian award for scholarly work in the arts and humanities, social sciences, law and theology.
In 2003, he gave the Sigmund H. Danziger Jr. Memorial Lecture in
the Humanities, and in 2010 he gave the René Descartes Lectures at the
Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS). Hacking also
gave the Howison lectures at the University of California, Berkeley,
on the topic of mathematics and its sources in human behavior ('Proof,
Truth, Hands and Mind') in 2010. In 2012, Hacking was awarded the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art, and in 2014 he was awarded the Balzan Prize.
The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory which states that an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions. Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence
theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their
opinion when they notice that their personal opinion is shared
throughout a group. But if the individual notices that their opinion is
unpopular with the group, they will be more inclined to be reserved and
remain silent. In other words, from the individual's perspective, "not
isolating themself is more important than their own judgement", meaning
their perception of how others in the group perceive them is more
important to themself than the need for their opinion to be heard.
According to Glynn (1995), "the major components of the spiral of silence include (1) an issue of public interest;
(2) divisiveness on the issue; (3) a quasi-statistical sense that helps
an individual perceive the climate of opinion as well as estimate the
majority and minority opinion; (4) 'fear of isolation' from social interaction "(though, whether this is a causal factor in the willingness to speak out is contested)";
(5) an individual's belief that a minority (or 'different') opinion
isolates oneself from others; and (6) a 'hardcore' group of people whose
opinions are unaffected by others' opinions."
The theory is not without criticism, some arguing that its widely
understood definition and parameters have not been updated to reflect
the behavior of 21st century society. Others point out that there is no room within the theory to account for variables of influence other than social isolation.
Background
In 1974, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a Germanpolitical scientist,
created the model called "Spiral of Silence". She believed that an
"individuals willingness to express his or her opinion was a function of
how he or she perceived public opinion." In 1974, Neumann and her husband founded the "Public Opinion
Organization" in Germany. She was also the President of the "World
Association for Public Opinion Research" from 1978 to 1980.
Noelle-Neumann evolved the spiral of silence theory from research on the 1965 West German federal election. The research, according to Noelle-Neumann, "measured a lot more than we understood." The two major parties were locked in a dead heat from December until
September, with a series of questions of public perception of the
election winner was showing steady, independent movement. During the
final days of the election, 3 to 4% of the voters shifted in the
direction of the public's perception of the winner. A similar shift
happened in the 1972 election, which began the development of the spiral of silence as a theory of public opinion.
According to Shelly Neill, "Introduced in 1974, the Spiral of
Silence Theory [...] explores hypotheses to determine why some groups
remain silent while others are more vocal in forums of public
disclosure." The spiral of silence theory suggests that "people who have believed
that they hold a minority viewpoint on a public issue will remain in the
background where their communication will be restrained; those who
believe that they hold a majority viewpoint will be more encouraged to
speak." The spiral of silence theory arose from a combination of high public
uncertainty about a topic with an increase in the flow of communication.
The theory explains the formation of social norms
at both the micro and macro level. "As a micro-theory, the spiral of
silence examines opinion expression, controlling for people's predispositions
– such as fear of isolation, and also demographic variables that have
been shown to influence people's willingness to publicly express
opinions on issues, such as agricultural biotechnology." This micro effect is seen in experiments such as the Asch conformity experiments,
conducted as early as the 1950s, in which a group of students are asked
to compare the length of lines. All but one student are coached ahead
of time on what answers to give and how to behave. When the coached
subjects gave unanimously incorrect answers, the dissenter tended to
agree with the majority, at times even when the difference between the
lines was so egregious as seven inches. On the macro
level, the spiral of silence occurs if more and more members of the
perceived minority fall silent. This is when public perceptions of the
opinion climate begin to shift. "In other words, a person's individual reluctance to express his or her
opinion, simply based on perceptions of what everyone else thinks, has
important implications at the social level." As one opinion gains interest, the amount of exposure it receives
increases, leading the public to believe it is the majority. The
perceived minority then faces the threat and fear of isolation from
society unless they conform. As the opinion gains momentum, the
perceived minority falls deeper into their silence. This continues until
the perceived minority no longer speaks out against it, either by
presenting an image of agreement or actually conforming, and the opinion
of the perceived majority ultimately becomes a social norm. Large scale effects of the spiral of silence can be seen when examining
the growth of the dominant opinion within a countries political climate
or other such issues.
The spiral of silence has continued to be observed and studied
since then. In today's world, technology can play a key part in the
spiral of silence, something that could not have been predicted at the
time of its inception. For example, survey data showed that during the
2016 US presidential election, opinion congruency for democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton in society at large and for republican candidate Donald Trump on Facebook had indirect associations for willingness to present one's opinion both offline and online.
Spiral model
The spiral model is used to visually represent the theory.
It claims that an individual is more likely to go down the spiral if
his or her opinion does not conform with the perceived majority opinion. The following steps summarize how the process works:
The model begins with individuals' inherent desire to blend with
society. The fear of social isolation is necessary for the spiral to
occur.
Individuals who notice that their personal opinion is spreading will
voice this opinion confidently in public. On the other hand,
individuals who notice that their opinions are losing ground will be
inclined to adopt a more reserved attitude when expressing their
opinions in public.
Representatives of the spreading opinion talk quite a lot while the
representatives of the second opinion remain silent. An opinion that is
being reinforced in this way appears stronger than it is, while a
suppressed opinion will seem weaker than it is.
The result is a spiral process which prompts other individuals to
perceive the changes in opinion and follow suit until one opinion
becomes established as the prevailing attitude. Meanwhile, the other
opinion is pushed back and rejected by most. The end of the spiral refers to the number of people who are not publicly expressing their opinions, due to the fear of isolation.
In summary, the spiral model is a process of formation, change, and
reinforcement of public opinion. The tendency of the one to speak up and
the other to be silent begins a spiraling process which increasingly
establishes one opinion as the dominant one.
Furthermore, Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out.
Relationship with other kinds of social influence
The basic ideas for the spiral of silence are not unique and are closely related to theories on conformity.
In 1987, Kerr, MacCoun, Hansen and Hymes introduced the idea of the
"momentum effect". The momentum effect states that if some members of a
group move toward a particular opinion, others will follow. Others have described similar "gain-loss effect" (Aronson & Linder, 1965), and "bandwagon effect"
(Myers & Lamm, 1976). Experiments also show how the spiral of
silence and the bandwagon effect jointly undermine minority positions
when pre-election polls are shown to voters.
Epistemology
Public
Scholars have misguided interpretations of "public opinion",
confusing it with government and therefore limiting the understanding
of the term as it relates to the theory. Noelle-Neumann clarifies this
by creating three distinct meanings of "public."
First, is the legal term used to define "public land" or "public
spaces." Second concerns the issues of people as seen in journalism.
Finally, public as in "public eye" is used in social psychology and refers to the way people think outwardly about their relationships. Public, in this sense, could be characterized as social psychology. This is the meaning intended to emphasize how subjects feel in social settings during conducted research.
Scholars have marveled in amazement at the power public opinion
has in making regulations, norms, and moral rules triumph over the
individual self without ever troubling legislators, governments, or
courts for assistance.
Opinion
"Common Opinion" is how the Scottishsocial philosopherDavid Hume referred to public opinion in his 1739 published work A Treatise of Human Nature. Agreement and a sense of the common are what lay behind the English and French "opinion." In researching the term opinion (Meinung in German) researchers were led back to Plato's Republic. In Plato's Republic, a quote from Socrates concluded that opinion takes the middle position. Immanuel Kant considered the opinion to be an "insufficient judgment, subjectively as well as objectively." How valuable opinion may be was left out; however, the fact that it is
suggested to be unified agreement of a population or segment of the
population, was still considered.
Public opinion
The term public opinion
first emerged in France during the eighteenth century. The definition
of public opinion has been debated over time. There has not been much
progress in locking in one classification of the phrase public opinion, however Hermann Oncken, a German historian, stated
Whoever desires to grasp and define the concept of public opinion will recognize quickly that he is dealing with a Proteus,
a being that appears simultaneously in a thousand guises, both visible
and as a phantom, impotent and surprisingly efficacious, which presents
itself in innumerable transformations and is forever slipping through
our fingers just as we believe we have a firm grip on it... That which
floats and flows cannot be understood by being locked up in a formula...
After all, when asked, everyone knows exactly what public opinion
means.
It was said to be a "fiction that belonged in a museum of the history of ideas; it could only be of historical interest."
In contradiction to that quote, the term public opinion never
fell out of use. During the early 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann was
creating the theory of the spiral of silence. She was attempting to
explain why Germans who disagreed with Hitler
and the Nazis remained silent until after his regime ended. Behavior
like that has come to be known as the spiral of silence theory. Noelle-Neumann
began to question if she was indeed getting a handle on what public
opinion actually was. "The spiral of silence might be one of the forms
in which public opinion appeared; it might be a process through which a
new, youthful public opinion develops or whereby the transformed meaning
of an old opinion spreads."
The American sociologist Edward Ross described public opinion
in 1898 using the word "cheap". "The equation of 'public opinion' with
'ruling opinion' runs like a common thread through its many definitions.
This speaks to the fact that something clinging to public opinion sets
up conditions that move individuals to act, even against their own
will."
Other scholars point out that the emergence of the public opinion
depends on an open public discourse rather than "on the discipline
imposed by an apparent majority dominant enough to intimidate but whose
views may or may not support actions that are in the common interest." They have also considered whose opinion establishes public opinion,
assumed to be persons of a community who are ready to express themselves
responsibly about questions of public relevance. Scholars have also
looked into the forms of public opinion, said to be those that are
openly expressed and accessible; opinions that are made public,
especially in the mass media. Controversy surrounding this term spiraled
around both words combining to form the phrase.
Neumann (1955) suggests two concepts on public opinion:
Public Opinion as Rationality: The public opinion or
"dominant view" comes after conscious rational public discussion. Childs
(1965) and Wilson (1933) believe that "the rational model is based on
the notion of an enlightened, rational public that is willing to and
capable of participating in political processes." In all, it is
political and necessary for generating social change.
Public Opinion as Social Control: This is at the root of
the spiral of silence theory. It means that "opinions that can be
expressed without risking sanctions or social isolation, or opinions
that have to be expressed in order to avoid isolation (Noelle-Neumann
1983). Social systems require cohesion. To achieve this, individuals are
threatened with social isolation.
In mass media contexts
Media and public opinion
Mass
media's effects on both public opinion and the perception of the public
opinion are central to the spiral of silence theory. One of the
earliest works that called attention to the relationship between media
and the formation of public opinion was Walter Lippmann's book "Public Opinion", published in 1922. Ideas of Lippmann regarding the effects of media influenced the
emergence of the spiral of silence theory. As she is building the spiral
theory, Noelle-Neumann states "the reader can only complete and explain
the world by making use of a consciousness which in large measure has
been created by the mass media."
Agenda-setting theory
is another work that Noelle-Neumann builds on as she is characterizing
media's effect on the public opinion. Agenda-setting theory describes
the relationship between media and public opinion by asserting that the
public importance of an issue depends on its salience in the media. Along with setting the agenda, the media further determine the salient
issues through a constant battle with other events attempting to gain
place in the agenda. The media battle with these news alternatives by creating "pseudo-crises" and "pseudo-novelties."
Media's characteristics as a communication tool further affect
people's perception of their own ideas in regard to the public opinion. According to Noelle-Neumann, the media are a "one-sided, indirect,
public form of communication, contrasting threefold with the most
natural form of human communication, the conversation." When an issue hits the media and proves salient, a dominant point of
view usually emerges. These characteristics of the media in particular
further overwhelm one's individual ideas.
While some media communication theories assume a passive audience, such as the Hypodermic Needle model, the spiral model assumes an active audience "who consumes media products in the context of their personal and social goals." Knowledge "gained from the mass media may offer ammunition for people
to express their opinions and offer a rationale for their own stance." Ho et al. point out that "among individuals who paid high amount of
media attention, those who have a low fear of isolation were
significantly more likely to offer a rationale for their own opinion
than were those who have a high fear of isolation."
Noelle-Neuman regards media as central to the formulation of the
Spiral of Silence Theory, whereas some scholars argue whether the
dominant idea in one's social environment overwhelms the dominant idea that media propose as the perceived social norm.Some empirical research align with this perspective; suggesting that the "micro-climate" of an individual overwhelms the effects of the media. Other articles further suggest that talking with others is the primary way of understanding the opinion climate.
Social media
Current literature suggests that the spiral model can be applied to the social media context. Researchers, Chaudhry & Gruzd (2019)
found that social media actually weakens this theory. They contest that
the spiral of silence suggests that the minority are uncomfortable
expressing their opinions because of the fear of isolation, but, "the
vocal minority are comfortable expressing unpopular views, questioning
the explanatory power of this popular theory in the online context."
However, in another study, Gearhart and Zhang examine whether or
not the use of social media will increase people's motivation to express
their opinions about political issues. The results suggest that social
media users "who have received a strong negative reaction to their
politically related posts are likely to censor themselves, exemplifying
the spiral of silence effect". Another study found that the fear of isolation causes people to not
want to share their opinion on social media in the first place. Similar
to the Gearhart and Zhang study, results from this study showed that
people are more likely to self-censor information on social media by not
posting some things that are political, choosing what and what not to
follow or like, etc.
Another research confirms the positive relationship between
speaking out and issue importance on the social media context as well:
individuals who view gay bullying as a significant social issue are more likely to comment on Facebook.
Artificially generated social engagement is also worth noting. As
social media becomes more and more important in our daily lives,
deceptive social bots have been successfully applied for manipulating online conversations and opinions. Social bots are social media accounts managed by computer algorithms.
They can automatically generate content and interact with human users,
often impersonating or imitating humans. Current research shows that "social bots" are being used on a large
scale to control the opinion climate to influence public opinion on
social media. In some cases only a small number of social bots can easily direct
public opinion on social media and trigger a spiral of silence model. For example, scholars find out that social bots can affect political discussion around the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the 2017 French presidential election.
Assumptions
Perception
The
Spiral of Silence Theory rests on the assumption that individuals will
scan their environment to assess the climate to possibly find the
dominant point of view. Perception matters because these opinions
influence an individual's behavior and attitudes. Sherif (1967) believes individuals use frames of reference based on past experience to inform their perception -- "social environment
as a frame of reference for interpreting new information has important
implications for public opinion research." It is also worth mentioning
that the assessment of one's social environment may not always correlate
with reality.
Quasi-statistical organ
Noelle-Neumann
attributed this ability of assessing opinion climate on an issue to the
so-called "quasi-statistical organ", which refers to how individuals
unconsciously assess the distribution of viewpoints and the chances that
certain viewpoints will succeed over others. People assume they can sense and figure out what others are thinking.
The Mass media
play a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since
our direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the
population. The mass media have an enormous impact on how public opinion
is portrayed, and can dramatically impact an individual's perception
about where public opinion lies, whether or not that portrayal is
factual.
Pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance may occur in some cases in which the minority opinion is incorrectly accepted as the norm.[1]
Group members may be privately rejecting a norm, but may falsely assume
that other group members accept it. This phenomenon, also known as a
collective illusions, is when people in a group think everyone else has a
different opinion from theirs and go along with the norm.
Fear of isolation
The spiral of silence can lead to a social group or society isolating or excluding members due to the members' opinions. This stipulates that individuals have a fear of isolation. This fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions.
The fear of isolation is the "engine that drives the spiral of silence". Essentially, people fear becoming social isolates and thus take
measures to avoid such a consequence, as demonstrated by psychologist Solomon Asch in the Asch conformity experiments. People feel more comfortable agreeing with the dominant opinions instead of expressing their own ideas.
An underlying idea of the spiral of silence theory is that public
opinion acts as a form of social control. According to Noelle-Neumann's
definition this key concept describes "opinions on controversial issues
that one can express in public without isolating oneself". This assumption supposed that public opinion is governed by norms and
conventions, the violation of which will lead to sanctions against those
individuals. Going off of this assumption that going against public
opinion will lead to social sanctions, Noelle-Neumann assumes that human
beings have an inherent fear of isolation and will adapt their behavior
so that they will not be isolated from others. This “fear of isolation” is so strong that people will not express
opinions if they assume that these opinions differ from public opinion.
How does the fear of isolation function?
This
fear of social isolation is a central concept in Noelle-Neumann's
theory but throughout different studies on the theory it has been
conceptualized in many different ways. Some researchers have considered fear of social isolation to be
transitory and triggered by the exposure to a situation in which an
individual is expected to express an opinion. In this conceptualization
an individual's perception of the opinion climate in a specific
situation would trigger the fear of isolation in that moment.
Other researchers have argued that instead of a
situation-specific reaction, fear of social isolation can be viewed as
individual characteristic that varies between people and leads
individuals to continuously monitor their environment for cues about the
opinion climate. While there are individuals who generally do not
suffer from a fear of isolation (what Noelle-Neumann referred to as
Hardcores)
others are constantly aware of their social environment and faced with a
constant fear of isolation. Individuals who bear this characteristic of
fear of social isolation and at the same time perceive their opinion to
be incongruent with the majority opinion climate are less likely to be
willing to voice their opinion. In this line of spiral of silence
research fear of social isolation is a key concept in formation of
public opinion, however research has often assumed this
conceptualization as a fact without empirical proof or been inconsistent in the empirical measurement of this phenomenon.
Recent research has been able to capture the concept of fear of
social isolation in a more reliable and consistent way. One example is
research conducted by Mathes (2012) in which the researchers used an individual differences approach based
on individual's character traits and measured individual's fear of
social isolation using psychometric properties. Mathes (2012), as well as other researchers, considers fear of social isolation to be a subsequent reaction to
encountering a perceived hostile opinion climate which in turn leads the
individual to not voice their own opinions and therefore sets in motion
the spiral of silence.
Although many accept fear of isolation to be the motivation
behind the theory, arguments have been made for other causal factors. For example, Lasorsa proposed it may be less a fear of isolation fueling the spiral, and
more about political interest (in the case of political debate) and
self-efficacy. From a more positive standpoint, Taylor suggested the
benefits of opinion expression, whether that opinion was common or not,
to be the motivation. When studying the willingness to discuss an issue so divisive as
abortion, Salmon and Neuwirth found only "mixed supportive evidence" for
fear of isolation, and instead found that knowledge and personal
concern of the issue played important roles. More examples follow at the end of the article.
Responses to disputed and undisputed opinions
Where
opinions are relatively definite and static – customs, for example –
one has to express or act according to this opinion in public or run the
risk of becoming isolated. In contrast, where opinions are in flux, or
disputed, the individual will try to find out which opinion he can
express without becoming isolated.
Vocal minority and hardcore
The theory explains a vocal minority (the complement of the silent majority)
by stating that people who are highly educated, or who have greater
affluence, and the few other cavalier individuals who do not fear
isolation (if that is accepted to be the causal factor), are likely to
speak out regardless of public opinion. It further states that this minority is a necessary factor of change
while the compliant majority is a necessary factor of stability, with
both being a product of evolution. There is a vocal minority, which
remains at the top of the spiral in defiance of threats of isolation.
This theory calls these vocal minorities the hardcore nonconformist or the avant-garde.
Hardcore nonconformists are "people who have already been rejected for
their beliefs and have nothing to lose by speaking out." The hardcore has the ability to reconfigure majority opinion, while the avant-garde
are "the intellectuals, artists, and reformers in the isolated minority
who speak out because they are convinced they are ahead of the times."
Hardcore is best understood when the majority voices loses power
in public opinion due to a lack of alternatives. People's opinions may
affect narrow-minded views as a result of the hard core's efforts to
educate the public. Hardcore may be instrumental in changing public
opinion even though it is frequently engaged in irrational acts to prove
their point.
Real world application of the theory
The spiral of silence has brought insight regarding diverse topics, ranging from speaking about popular culture phenomena to smoking. Considering that the spiral of silence is more likely to occur in controversial issues and issues with a moral component, many scholars have applied the theory to controversial topics, such as abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, mandatory COVID-19 vaccines and masking.
Social capital
The spiral of silence theory can be also applied to social capital context. Recent studies see social capital as "a variable that enables citizens to develop norms of trust and reciprocity, which are necessary for successful engagement in collective activities". One study examines three individual-level indicators of social capital: civic engagement,
trust and neighborliness, and the relationship between these indicators
and people's willingness to express their opinions and their perception
of support for one's opinions. The results suggest that civic
engagement has a direct effect on people's willingness to express their
opinions and neighborliness and trust had direct positive effects on
people's perception of support for one's opinions. Also, the study shows that "only a direct (but not indirect) effect of
civic engagement on opinion expression further highlights a potential
difference between bonding and bridging social capital".
Cross-cultural studies
Existing literature prior to the spiral of silence theory suggest a relationship between social conformity and culture, motivating communication scholars to conduct cross-cultural analysis of the theory. Scholars in the field of psychology in particular previously addressed the cultural variance involved in the conformity to the majority opinion. More recent studies confirm the link between conformity and culture: a meta-analysis regarding Asch conformity experiments, for example, suggest that collectivist cultures are more likely to exhibit conformity than the individualistic cultures.
The United States and Taiwan
"A Cross-Cultural Test of the Spiral of Silence" by Huiping Huang analyzes the results of a telephone survey done in Taiwan and the United States. The hypotheses tested were the beliefs that the United States is an "individualistic" society, while Taiwan is a "collectivist"
society. This suggested that the spiral of silence is less likely to be
activated in the United States, because individuals are more likely to
put emphasis on their personal goals. They put the "I" identity over the
"we" identity, and strive for personal success. Therefore, it was
hypothesized that they would be more likely to speak out, regardless of
if they are in the minority. On the other hand, it was predicted that
individuals in Taiwan put more emphasis on the collective goal, so they
would conform to the majority influence in hopes of avoiding tension and
conflict. The study also tested the effect of motives, including self-efficacy and self-assurance.
Telephone surveys were conducted; the citizens of the United States were questioned in regard to American involvement in Somalia,
and the citizens of Taiwan about the possibility of a direct
presidential election. Both issues focused on politics and human rights,
and were therefore comparable. Respondents were asked to choose
"favor", "neutral" or "oppose" in regard to the categories of
themselves, family and friends, the media, society, and society in the
future about the given issue. Measurements were also taken regarding the
individualism
and collectivism constructs, and the "motives of not expressing
opinion" based on a 1–10 and 1–5 scale respectively, in approval of
given statements.
Results showed support for the original hypothesis. Overall, Americans were more likely to speak out than Taiwanese.
Being incongruous with the majority lessened the motivation of the
Taiwanese to speak out (and they had a higher collectivist score), but
had little effect on the Americans. In Taiwan, future support and belief
of society played a large role in likeliness to voice an opinion, and
support that the activation of the spiral of silence is in effect. In
the United States, it was hypothesized that because they were more
individualistic, they would be more likely to speak out if in the
minority, or incongruous group. However, this was not true, but Huang
suggests that perhaps the issue chosen was not directly prevalent, and
therefore, they found it "unnecessary to voice their objections to the
majority opinion." Lack of self-efficacy led to lack of speaking out in
both countries.
Basque nationalism
Basque Nationalism and the Spiral of Silence is an article by Spencer and Croucher that analyzes the public perception of ETA
(Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, a militant separatist group) in Spain and
France. This study was conducted in a similar way as above, with Basque
individuals from Spain and France being questioned about their support
of ETA. They were asked questions such as "How likely would you be to
enter into a conversation with a stranger on a train about ETA?" Taken
into consideration were the cultural differences of the two different
regions in which ETA existed.
The results supported the theory of the spiral of silence. While
there was a highly unfavorable opinion of the group, there was a lack of
an outcry to stop it. Individuals claimed that they were more likely to
voice their opinions to non-Basques, suggesting that they have a "fear
of isolation" in regard to fellow Basques.
Furthermore, the Spanish individuals questioned were more likely to be
silent because of their greater proximity to the violent acts.
Perceptions in the classroom
One study by Henson and Denker "investigates perceptions of silencing behaviors, political affiliation, and political differences as correlates to perceptions of the university classroom climates and communication behaviors." They looked at whether students' view of the classroom changes whether
they perceive the instructor and other classmates with a different
political affiliation, with the instructor and other classmates
communicating using silencing behaviors. The article stated that little
has been investigated into student-teacher interactions in the
classroom, and how the students are influenced. The goal of the article was to "determine how political ideas are
expressed in the university classrooms, and thus, assess the influence
of classroom communication on the perceptions of political tolerance."
The article claimed that university classrooms are an adequate
place to scrutinize the spiral of silence theory because it is a place
that has interpersonal, cultural, media, and political communication.
Henson and Denker said, "Because classroom interactions and societal
discourse are mutually influential, instructors and students bring their
own biases and cultural perspectives into the classroom."
The study researched whether there was a correlation between
students' perception that they were being politically silenced and their
perceived differences in student-instructor political affiliation. The
study also questioned whether there was any connection between the
perceived climate and the similarity of the student and instructor on
their political affiliations. The researchers used participants from a Midwestern university's
communication courses. The students answered a survey over their
perceptions of political silencing, classroom climate, and the climate
created by the instructor. The results of this research found that there
is a positive relationship of the perceived similarities in a political
party and ideological differences of the student and instructor to perceived greater political silencing.
In computer-mediated communication
While the studies regarding the spiral of silence theory focused on face-to-face interaction before 2000, the theory was later applied to a computer-mediated communication
environment. The first study in this context analyzed communication
behaviors in online chat rooms regarding the issue of abortion, and
revealed that minority opinion holders were more likely to speak out,
whereas their comments remained neutral. Another study focused on the Korean bulletin board postings regarding
the national election, and found a relationship between online postings
and the presentation of candidates in the mainstream media. The third study focuses on the online review system, suggesting that
the fear of isolation tend to reduce the willingness of members to voice
neutral and negative reviews. The spiral of silence theory is extended "into the context of
non-anonymous multichannel communication platforms" and "the need to
consider the role of communicative affordances in online opinion
expression" is also addressed.
The rising influence of the internet and social media
Isolating the factors that remove isolation
The
concept of isolation has a variety of definitions, dependent upon the
circumstances it is investigated in. In one instance the problem of
isolation has been defined as social withdrawal, defined as low relative frequencies of peer interaction. Other researchers have defined isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection. Research that considers isolation with regard to the Internet either
focuses on how the Internet makes individuals more isolated from society
by cutting off their contact from live human beings or how the Internet decreases social isolation of people by allowing them to expand their social networks and giving them more means to stay in touch with friends and family. Since the development of the Internet, and in particular the World Wide Web, a wide variety of groups have come into existence, including Web and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), newsgroups, multiuser dimensions (MUDs), and, more recently, commercial virtual communities. The theories and hypotheses about how Internet-based groups impact individuals are numerous and wide-ranging. Some researchers view these fast growing virtual chat cliques, online games,
or computer-based marketplaces as a new opportunity, particularly for
stigmatized people, to take a more active part in social life.
Traditionally, social isolation has been presented as a
one-dimensional construct organized around the notion of a person's
position outside the peer group and refers to isolation from the group as a result of being excluded from the group by peers. From children to adults, literature shows that people understand the
concept of isolation and fear the repercussions of being isolated from
groups of which they are a member. Fearing isolation, people did not
feel free to speak up if they feel they hold dissenting views, which
means people restrict themselves to having conversation with like-minded
individuals, or have no conversation whatsoever. Witschge further explained, "Whether it is fear of harming others, or
fear to get harmed oneself, there are factors that inhibit people from
speaking freely, and which thus results in a non-ideal type of
discussion, as it hinders diversity and equality of participants and
viewpoints to arise fully."
The medium of the Internet has the power to free people from the
fear of social isolation, and in doing so, shuts down the spiral of
silence. One article demonstrates that social media can weaken the fear
of isolation. The research shows that the vocal minority who hold racist
viewpoints are willing to express unpopular views on Facebook. The Internet allows people to find a place where they can find groups
of people with like mindsets and similar points of view. Van Alstyne and
Brynjolfsson stated that "Internet users can seek out interactions with
like-minded individuals who have similar values, and thus become less
likely to trust important decisions to people whose values differ from
their own." The features of the Internet could not only bring about more people to
deliberate by freeing people of psychological barriers, but also bring
new possibilities in that it "makes manageable large-scale, many-to-many discussion and deliberation." Unlike traditional media
that limit participation, the Internet brings the characteristics of
empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific
audiences can be targeted effectively and people can be brought together
through the medium.
Online versus offline
The Internet is a place where many reference and social groups
are available with similar views. It has become a place where it
appears that people have less of a fear of isolation. One research
article examined individuals' willingness to speak their opinion online
and offline. Through survey results from 305 participants, a comparison
and contrast of online and offline spiral of silence behaviors was
determined. Liu and Fahmy stated that "it is easy to quit from an online discussion
without the pressure of complying with the majority group." This is not to say that a spiral of silence does not occur in an online
environment. People are still less likely to speak out, even in an
online setting, when there is a dominant opinion that differs from their
own. But people in the online environment will speak up if someone has a reference group that speaks up for them.
Online, the presence of one person who encourages a minority
point of view can put an end to a spiral of silence. Studies of the
spiral of silence in online behavior have not acknowledged that a person
may be more likely to speak out against dominant views offline as well. The person might have characteristics that make them comfortable
speaking out against dominant views offline, which make them just as
comfortable speaking out in an online setting.
Although research suggests that people will disclose their
opinions more often in an online setting, silencing of views can still
occur. One study indicates that people on Facebook are less willing to
discuss the Snowden and NSA stories than an offline situation such as a
family dinner or public meeting.[86] Another research article examined the influence of different opinion climates in online forums
(opinion congruence with the majority of forum participants vs. website
source) and found personal opinion congruence was more influential than
the online site in which the forum is situated in.[87]
Nekmat and Gonzenbach said it might be worth researching whether the
factors in these studies or other factors cause people to be more
comfortable when it comes to speaking their mind while online.[87]
Heterogeneity and anonymity
The
nature of the Internet facilitates not only the participation of more
people, but also a more heterogeneous group of people. Page stated, "The
onward rush of electronic communications technology will presumably
increase the diversity of available ideas and the speed and ease with
which they fly about and compete with each other." The reason people engage in deliberations is because of their
differences, and the Internet allows differences to be easily found. The
Internet seems the perfect place to find different views of a very
diverse group of people who are at the same time open to such difference
and disagreement needed for deliberation. Noelle-Neumann's initial idea
of cowering and muted citizens is difficult to reconcile with empirical
studies documenting uninhibited discussion in computer-mediated
contexts such as chat rooms and newsgroups.
The Internet provides an anonymous setting, and it can be argued
that in an anonymous setting, fears of isolation and humiliation would
be reduced. Wallace recognized that when people believe their actions
cannot be attributed to them personally, they tend to become less
inhibited by social conventions
and restraints. This can be very positive, particularly when people are
offered the opportunity to discuss difficult personal issues under
conditions in which they feel safer.
The groups' ability to taunt an individual is lessened on the Internet, thus reducing the tendency to conform. Wallace goes on to summarize a
number of empirical studies that do find that dissenters feel more
liberated to express their views online than offline, which might result
from the fact that the person in the minority would not have to endure
taunts or ridicule from people that are making up the majority, or be
made to feel uncomfortable for having a different opinion. Stromer-Galley considered that "an absence of non-verbal
cues, which leads to a lowered sense of social presence, and a
heightened sense of anonymity" frees people from the psychological
barriers that keep them from engaging in a face-to-face deliberation.
The crux of the spiral of silence is that people believe
consciously or subconsciously that the expression of unpopular opinions
will lead to negative repercussions. These beliefs may not exist on the
Internet for several reasons. First, embarrassment and humiliation
depends on the physical presence of others. In computer-mediated communication, physical isolation often already exists and poses no further threat. Second, a great deal of normative influence is communicated through nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and gestures, but computer-mediated communication typically precludes many of these
cues. Third, Kiesler, Siegel, and McQuire observe that nonverbal social context cues convey formality and status inequality in face-to-face communication. When these cues are removed, the importance of social status
as a source of influence recedes. Group hierarchies that develop in
face-to-face interaction emerge less clearly in a mediated environment. The form and consequences of conformity influence should undergo significant changes given the interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of participants. Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person's presence.
Equality
An important issue in obtaining heterogeneity in conversation is equal access for all the participants and equal opportunities
to influence in the discussion. When people believe they are ignorant
about a topic, incapable to participate in a discussion or not equal to
their peers, they tend to not even become involved in a deliberation. When people do decide to participate, their participation might be overruled by dominant others, or their contribution might be valued less or more, depending on their status. Dahlberg praises the Internet for its possibility to liberate people from the social hierarchies and power relations that exist offline: "The 'blindness' of cyberspace
to bodily identity... [is supposed to allow] people to interact as if
they were equals. Arguments are said to be assessed by the value of the
claims themselves and not the social position of the poster".
Gastil sees this feature as one of the strongest points of the
Internet: "if computer-mediated interaction can consistently reduce the
independent influence of status, it will have a powerful advantage over
face-to-face deliberation". While status cues are difficult to detect, perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and prejudice.
It may be that people do feel more equal in online forums than they feel offline. Racism, ageism, and other kinds of discrimination against out groups "seems to be diminishing because the cues to out-group status are not as obvious". Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and dramatically increased the capacities to develop, share and organizeinformation, realizing more equality of access to information.
Methodological research approaches
The relationship between the perception of public opinion and willingness to speak-up is mainly measured through surveys. Surveys respondents are often asked whether they would reveal their
opinions given a hypothetical situation, right after their opinions
about the public opinion and their opinion is received. Whether asking
hypothetical questions can reflect real life cases was questioned by
some communication scholars, leading to a criticism of this methodology as not being able to capture what the respondent would do in a real-life situation. A research study addressed this criticism by comparatively testing a spiral model both in a hypothetical survey and in a focus group. The findings are in line with the critic of hypothetical survey
questions, demonstrating a significant increase in the spiral of silence
in focus groups.
Among different approaches to survey methodology, cross-sectional study design is the leading method employed to analyze and test the theory. Cross-sectional design involves the analysis of the relationship
between public opinion and willingness to speak at one point in time.
While many of the researchers employ cross-sectional design, some scholars employed panel data. Under this methodology, three specific approaches have been used.
Noelle-Neumann herself tested the theory from the aggregate level. Using
this approach, the change process is "observed by comparing the
absolute share of people perceiving a majority climate with people
willing to express their views over time." The second approach that has been used in spiral of silence research is
conducting separate regressions for each panel survey wave. The
drawback for this approach is that the individual change of climate and
opinions perception is ignored. The last approach a few scholars used in conducting spiral of silence
researches is to use changed scores as dependent variables. However, as
intuitive as this approach may be, it "leads to well-documented
difficulties with respect to statistical properties, such as regression
to the mean or the negative correlation of the change score with the
time one state".
Criticisms
The
critics of this theory most often claim that individuals have different
influences that affect whether they speak out or not.
Research indicates that people fear isolation in their small
social circles more than they do in the population at large. Within a
large nation, one can always find a group of people who share one's
opinions, however people fear isolation from their close family and
friends more in theory. Research has demonstrated that this fear of
isolation is stronger than the fear of being isolated from the entire
public, as it is typically measured.
Scholars have argued that both personal characteristics and
various cultures among different groups will have influences on whether a
person will willingly speak out. If one person "has a positive
self-concept and lacks a sense of shame, that person will speak out
regardless of how she or he perceives the climate of public opinion." Another influence critics give for people choosing not to speak out
against public opinion is culture. Some cultures are more
individualistic, which would support more of an individual's own
opinion, while collectivist cultures support the overall group's opinion
and needs. Gender can be also considered as a cultural factor. In some
cultures, women's "perception of language, not public opinion, forces
them to remain quiet." Scheufele & Moy, further assert that certain conflict styles and
cultural indicators should be used to understand these differences.
The nature of issues will influence the dynamic processes of the spiral of silence. Yeric and Todd present three issues type, including enduring issues
that will be discussed by the public for a long time; emerging issues
that are new to the public but have the potential to become enduring
issues; and the transitory issues, which don't stay in the public
consciousness for very long but come up from time to time. The research suggests that issues difference affects people's
willingness to express. Facebook users are more likely to post their
real thoughts on emerging issues such as gay marriage in an incongruent
opinion climate.
Another criticism of the spiral of silence research is that the
research designs do not observe the movement in the spiral over time.
Critics propose that Noelle-Neumann's emphasis on time in the formation of the spiral should reflect on the methodology as
well, and the dynamic nature of the spiral model should be acknowledged.
They argue that the spiral of silence theory involves a "time factor",
considering that the changes in public opinion eventually lead to change
in people's assessments of the public opinion. Also, according to Spilchal, the spiral of silence theory "ignores the
evidence of the historical development of public opinion, both in theory
and practice, through the extension of suffrage, organisation of
political propaganda groups, the establishment of pressure groups and
political parties, the eligibility of ever wider circles of public
officials and, eventually, the installation of several forms of direct
democracy."
Some scholars also provide understandings of the theory in the
contemporary society by pointing out that "it is not so much the actual
statistical majority that generates pressure for conformity as it is the
climate of opinion conveyed in large measure by the media." Under the great influence by the media coverage, the climate of opinion
"is not invariably an accurate reflection of the distribution of
opinions within the polity."
Further, Scheufele & Moy find problems in the operationalization of key terms, including
willingness to speak out. This construct should be measured in terms of
actually speaking out, not voting or other conceptually similar
constructs. Conformity experiments have no moral component, yet morality
is a key construct in the model. These conformity experiments,
particularly those by Asch, form part of the base of the theory.
Scholars question whether these conformity experiments are relevant to
the development of the spiral of silence.
False dilemmas and silence of consistency
While
the existence of groups with opinions other than those that are
supposed to be dominant in a society provide a space for some people to
express seemingly unpopular opinions, assumptions in such groups that
criticism of their underrepresented opinion equates to support for
society's mainstream views is a source of false dilemmas.
Some research indicates that such false dilemmas, especially when
there are inconsistencies both in mainstream views and in organized
opposition views, causes a spiral of silence that specifically silences
logically consistent third, fourth or higher number viewpoint criticism.
The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances.
Separate branches of epistemology focus on knowledge in specific
fields, like scientific, mathematical, moral, and religious knowledge. Naturalized epistemology relies on empirical methods and discoveries, whereas formal epistemology uses formal tools from logic. Social epistemology investigates the communal aspect of knowledge, and historical epistemology examines its historical conditions. Epistemology is closely related to psychology,
which describes the beliefs people hold, while epistemology studies the
norms governing the evaluation of beliefs. It also intersects with
fields such as decision theory, education, and anthropology.
Early reflections on the nature, sources, and scope of knowledge are found in ancient Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. The relation between reason and faith was a central topic in the medieval period. The modern era
was characterized by the contrasting perspectives of empiricism and
rationalism. Epistemologists in the 20th century examined the
components, structure, and value of knowledge while integrating insights
from the natural sciences and linguistics.
Definition
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and related concepts, such as justification. Also called theory of knowledge, it examines the nature and types of knowledge. It further investigates the sources of knowledge, like perception, inference, and testimony,
to understand how knowledge is created. Another set of questions
concerns the extent and limits of knowledge, addressing what people can
and cannot know. Central concepts in epistemology include belief, truth, evidence, and reason. As one of the main branches of philosophy, epistemology stands alongside fields like ethics, logic, and metaphysics. The term can also refer specific positions of philosophers within this branch, as in Plato's epistemology and Immanuel Kant's epistemology.
Epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs. It
determines which beliefs or forms of belief acquisition meet the
standards or epistemic goals of knowledge and which ones fail, thereby
providing an evaluation of beliefs. The fields of psychology and cognitive sociology
are also interested in beliefs and related cognitive processes, but
examine them from a different perspective. Unlike epistemology, they
study the beliefs people actually have and how people acquire them
instead of examining the evaluative norms of these processes. In this regard, epistemology is a normative discipline, whereas psychology and cognitive sociology are descriptive disciplines. Epistemology is relevant to many descriptive and normative disciplines,
such as the other branches of philosophy and the sciences, by exploring
the principles of how they may arrive at knowledge.
The word epistemology comes from the ancient Greek terms ἐπιστήμη (episteme, meaning knowledge or understanding) and λόγος (logos, meaning study of or reason), literally,
the study of knowledge. Despite its ancient roots, the word itself was
only coined in the 19th century to designate this field as a distinct
branch of philosophy.
Central concepts
Epistemologists
examine several foundational concepts to understand their essences and
rely on them to formulate theories. Various epistemological
disagreements have their roots in disputes about the nature and function
of these concepts, like the controversies surrounding the definition of
knowledge and the role of justification in it.
Knowledge is an awareness, familiarity, understanding, or skill. Its
various forms all involve a cognitive success through which a person
establishes epistemic contact with reality. Epistemologists typically understand knowledge as an aspect of individuals, generally as a cognitive mental state
that helps them understand, interpret, and interact with the world.
While this core sense is of particular interest to epistemologists, the
term also has other meanings. For example, the epistemology of groups
examines knowledge as a characteristic of a group of people who share
ideas. The term can also refer to information stored in documents and computers.
Knowledge contrasts with ignorance,
often simply defined as the absence of knowledge. Knowledge is usually
accompanied by ignorance because people rarely have complete knowledge
of a field, forcing them to rely on incomplete or uncertain information
when making decisions. Even though many forms of ignorance can be mitigated through education
and research, certain limits to human understanding result in inevitable
ignorance. Some limitations are inherent in the human cognitive faculties themselves, such as the inability to know facts too complex for the human mind to conceive. Others depend on external circumstances when no access to the relevant information exists.
Epistemologists disagree on how much people know, for example,
whether fallible beliefs can amount to knowledge or whether absolute
certainty is required. The most stringent position is taken by radical skeptics, who argue that there is no knowledge at all.
Types
Bertrand Russell originated the distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance.
Epistemologists distinguish between different types of knowledge. Their primary interest is in knowledge of facts, called propositional knowledge. It is theoretical knowledge that can be expressed in declarative sentences using a that-clause, like "Ravi knows that kangaroos hop". For this reason, it is also called knowledge-that. Epistemologists often understand it as a relation between a knower and a known proposition, in the case above between the person Ravi and the proposition "kangaroos hop". It is use-independent since it is not tied to one specific purpose,
unlike practical knowledge. It is a mental representation that embodies
concepts and ideas to reflect reality. Because of its theoretical nature, it is typically held that only
creatures with highly developed minds, such as humans, possess
propositional knowledge.
Propositional knowledge contrasts with non-propositional knowledge in the form of knowledge-how and knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge-how is a practical ability or skill, like knowing how to read or how to prepare lasagna. It is usually tied to a specific goal and not mastered in the abstract without concrete practice. To know something by acquaintance means to have an immediate
familiarity with or awareness of it, usually as a result of direct
experiential contact. Examples are "familiarity with the city of Perth", "knowing the taste of tsampa", and "knowing Marta Vieira da Silva personally".
The analytic–synthetic distinction has its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
Another influential distinction in epistemology is between a posteriori and a priori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge is knowledge of empirical facts based on sensory experience, like "seeing that the sun is shining" and "smelling that a piece of meat has gone bad". This type of knowledge is associated with the empirical science and everyday affairs. A priori
knowledge, by contrast, pertains to non-empirical facts and does not
depend on evidence from sensory experience, like knowing that . It belongs to fields such as mathematics and logic. The distinction between a posteriori and a priori knowledge is central to the debate between empiricists and rationalists regarding whether all knowledge depends on sensory experience.
A closely related contrast is between analytic and synthetic truths.
A sentence is analytically true if its truth depends only on the
meanings of the words it uses. For instance, the sentence "all bachelors
are unmarried" is analytically true because the word "bachelor" already
includes the meaning "unmarried". A sentence is synthetically true if
its truth depends on additional facts. For example, the sentence "snow
is white" is synthetically true because its truth depends on the color
of snow in addition to the meanings of the words snow and white. A priori knowledge is primarily associated with analytic sentences, whereas a posteriori
knowledge is primarily associated with synthetic sentences. However, it
is controversial whether this is true for all cases. Some philosophers,
such as Willard Van Orman Quine, reject the distinction, saying that there are no analytic truths.
The analysis of knowledge is the attempt to identify the essential components or conditions of all and only propositional knowledge states. According to the so-called traditional analysis, knowledge has three components: it is a belief that is justified and true. In the second half of the 20th century, this view was challenged by a series of thought experiments aiming to show that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge. In one of them, a person is unaware of all the fake barns
in their area. By coincidence, they stop in front of the only real barn
and form a justified true belief that it is a real barn. Many epistemologists agree that this is not knowledge because the justification is not directly relevant to the truth. More specifically, this and similar counterexamples involve some form
of epistemic luck, that is, a cognitive success that results from
fortuitous circumstances rather than competence.
The so-called traditional analysis says that knowledge is justified true belief. Edmund Gettier tried to show that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge.
Following these thought experiments, philosophers proposed various alternative definitions of knowledge by modifying or expanding the traditional analysis. According to one view, the known fact has to cause the belief in the right way. Another theory states that the belief is the product of a reliable belief formation process. Further approaches require that the person would not have the belief if it was false, that the belief is not inferred from a falsehood, that the justification cannot be undermined, or that the belief is infallible. There is no consensus on which of the proposed modifications and reconceptualizations is correct. Some philosophers, such as Timothy Williamson, reject the basic assumption underlying the analysis of knowledge by arguing that propositional knowledge is a unique state that cannot be dissected into simpler components.
Value
The value of knowledge is the worth it holds by expanding understanding and guiding action. Knowledge can have instrumental value by helping a person achieve their goals. For example, knowledge of a disease helps a doctor cure their patient. The usefulness of a known fact depends on the circumstances. Knowledge
of some facts may have little to no uses, like memorizing random phone
numbers from an outdated phone book. Being able to assess the value of knowledge matters in choosing what
information to acquire and share. It affects decisions like which
subjects to teach at school and how to allocate funds to research
projects.
Epistemologists are particularly interested in whether knowledge is more valuable than a mere true opinion. Knowledge and true opinion often have a similar usefulness since both
accurately represent reality. For example, if a person wants to go to Larissa, a true opinion about the directions can guide them as effectively as knowledge. Considering this problem, Plato proposed that knowledge is better because it is more stable. Another suggestion focuses on practical reasoning, arguing that people put more trust in knowledge than in mere true opinions when drawing conclusions and deciding what to do. A different response says that knowledge has intrinsic value in
addition to instrumental value. This view asserts that knowledge is
always valuable, whereas true opinion is only valuable in circumstances
where it is useful.
Beliefs are mental states about what is the case, like believing that snow is white or that God exists. In epistemology, they are often understood as subjective attitudes that affirm or deny a proposition, which can be expressed in a declarative sentence.
For instance, to believe that snow is white is to affirm the
proposition "snow is white". According to this view, beliefs are
representations of what the universe is like. They are stored in memory
and retrieved when actively thinking about reality or deciding how to
act. A different view understands beliefs as behavioral patterns or dispositions
to act rather than as representational items stored in the mind.
According to this perspective, to believe that there is mineral water in
the fridge is nothing more than a group of dispositions related to
mineral water and the fridge. Examples are the dispositions to answer
questions about the presence of mineral water affirmatively and to go to
the fridge when thirsty. Some theorists deny the existence of beliefs, saying that this concept borrowed from folk psychology oversimplifies much more complex psychological or neurological processes. Beliefs are central to various epistemological debates, which cover
their status as a component of propositional knowledge, the question of
whether people have control over and responsibility for their beliefs, and the issue of whether beliefs have degrees, called credences.
As propositional attitudes, beliefs are true or false depending on whether they affirm a true or a false proposition. According to the correspondence theory of truth,
to be true means to stand in the right relation to the world by
accurately describing what it is like. This means that truth is
objective: a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact. The coherence theory of truth
says that a belief is true if it belongs to a coherent system of
beliefs. A result of this view is that truth is relative since it
depends on other beliefs. Further theories of truth include pragmatist, semantic, pluralist, and deflationary theories. Truth plays a central role in epistemology as a goal of cognitive processes and an attribute of propositional knowledge.
In epistemology, justification is a property of beliefs that meet certain norms about what a person should believe. According to a common view, this means that the person has sufficient
reasons for holding this belief because they have information that
supports it. Another view states that a belief is justified if it is formed by a reliable belief formation process, such as perception. The terms reasonable, warranted, and supported are sometimes used as synonyms of the word justified. Justification distinguishes well-founded beliefs from superstition and lucky guesses. However, it does not guarantee truth. For example, a person with strong
but misleading evidence may form a justified belief that is false.
Epistemologists often identify justification as a key component of knowledge. Usually, they are not only interested in whether a person has a sufficient reason to hold a belief, known as propositional justification, but also in whether the person holds the belief because or based on this reason, known as doxastic justification.
For example, if a person has sufficient reason to believe that a
neighborhood is dangerous but forms this belief based on superstition
then they have propositional justification but lack doxastic
justification.
Sources
Sources
of justification are ways or cognitive capacities through which people
acquire justification. Often-discussed sources include perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony, but there is no universal agreement to what extent they all provide valid justification. Perception relies on sensory organs to gain empirical information. Distinct forms of perception correspond to different physical stimuli, such as visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory, and gustatory perception. Perception is not merely the reception of sense impressions but an active process that selects, organizes, and interprets sensory signals. Introspection is a closely related process focused on internal mental states
rather than external physical objects. For example, seeing a bus at a
bus station belongs to perception while feeling tired belongs to
introspection.
Rationalists understand reason as a source of justification for
non-empirical facts, explaining how people can know about mathematical,
logical, and conceptual truths. Reason is also responsible for
inferential knowledge, in which one or more beliefs serve as premises to
support another belief. Memory depends on information provided by other sources, which it
retains and recalls, like remembering a phone number perceived earlier. Justification by testimony relies on information one person
communicates to another person. This can happen by talking to each other
but can also occur in other forms, like a letter, a newspaper, and a
blog.
Other concepts
Rationality is closely related to justification and the terms rational belief and justified belief
are sometimes used interchangeably. However, rationality has a wider
scope that encompasses both a theoretical side, covering beliefs, and a
practical side, covering decisions, intentions, and actions. There are different conceptions about what it means for something to be
rational. According to one view, a mental state is rational if it is
based on or responsive to good reasons. Another view emphasizes the role
of coherence, stating that rationality requires that the different
mental states of a person are consistent and support each other. A slightly different approach holds that rationality is about achieving
certain goals. Two goals of theoretical rationality are accuracy and
comprehensiveness, meaning that a person has as few false beliefs and as
many true beliefs as possible.
Epistemologists rely on the concept of epistemic norms as
criteria to assess the cognitive quality of beliefs, like their
justification and rationality. They distinguish between deontic norms,
which prescribe what people should believe, and axiological norms, which identify the goals and values of beliefs. Epistemic norms are closely linked to intellectual or epistemic virtues, which are character traits like open-mindedness and conscientiousness.
Epistemic virtues help individuals form true beliefs and acquire
knowledge. They contrast with epistemic vices and act as foundational
concepts of virtue epistemology.
Epistemologists understand evidence
for a belief as information that favors or supports it. They
conceptualize evidence primarily in terms of mental states, such as
sensory impressions or other known propositions. But in a wider sense,
it can also include physical objects, like bloodstains examined by forensic analysts or financial records studied by investigative journalists. Evidence is often understood in terms of probability: evidence for a belief makes it more likely that the belief is true. A defeater is evidence against a belief or evidence that undermines another piece of evidence. For instance, witness testimony linking a suspect to a crime is evidence of their guilt, while an alibi is a defeater. Evidentialists
analyze justification in terms of evidence by asserting that for a
belief to be justified, it needs to rest on adequate evidence.
The presence of evidence usually affects doubt and certainty,
which are subjective attitudes toward propositions that differ
regarding their level of confidence. Doubt involves questioning the
validity or truth of a proposition. Certainty, by contrast, is a strong
affirmative conviction, indicating an absence of doubt about the
proposition's truth. Doubt and certainty are central to ancient Greek
skepticism and its goal of establishing that no belief is immune to
doubt. They are also crucial in attempts to find a secure foundation of
all knowledge, such as René Descartes' foundationalist epistemology.
While propositional knowledge is the main topic in epistemology, some theorists focus on understanding
instead. Understanding is a more holistic notion that involves a wider
grasp of a subject. To understand something, a person requires awareness
of how different things are connected and why they are the way they
are. For example, knowledge of isolated facts memorized from a textbook
does not amount to understanding. According to one view, understanding
is a unique epistemic good that, unlike propositional knowledge, is
always intrinsically valuable. Wisdom
is similar in this regard and is sometimes considered the highest
epistemic good. It encompasses a reflective understanding with practical
applications, helping people grasp and evaluate complex situations and
lead a good life.
In epistemology, knowledge ascription is the act of attributing
knowledge to someone, expressed in sentences like "Sarah knows that it
will rain today". According to invariantism, knowledge ascriptions have fixed standards across different contexts. Contextualists,
by contrast, argue that knowledge ascriptions are context-dependent.
From this perspective, Sarah may know about the weather in the context
of an everyday conversation even though she is not sufficiently informed
to know it in the context of a rigorous meteorological debate. Contrastivism,
another view, argues that knowledge ascriptions are comparative,
meaning that to know something involves distinguishing it from relevant
alternatives. For example, if a person spots a bird in the garden, they
may know that it is a sparrow rather than an eagle, but they may not
know that it is a sparrow rather than an indistinguishable sparrow
hologram.
Philosophical skepticism
questions the human ability to attain knowledge by challenging the
foundations upon which knowledge claims rest. Some skeptics limit their
criticism to specific domains of knowledge. For example, religious skeptics
say that it is impossible to know about the existence of deities or the
truth of other religious doctrines. Similarly, moral skeptics challenge
the existence of moral knowledge and metaphysical skeptics say that
humans cannot know ultimate reality. External world skepticism questions knowledge of external facts, whereas skepticism about other minds doubts knowledge of the mental states of others.
Global skepticism is the broadest form of skepticism, asserting that there is no knowledge in any domain. In ancient philosophy, this view was embraced by academic skeptics, whereas Pyrrhonian skeptics recommended the suspension of belief to attain tranquility. Few epistemologists have explicitly defended global skepticism. The
influence of this position stems from attempts by other philosophers to
show that their theory overcomes the challenge of skepticism. For
example, René Descartes used methodological doubt to find facts that cannot be doubted.
One consideration in favor of global skepticism is the dream argument.
It starts from the observation that, while people are dreaming, they
are usually unaware of this. This inability to distinguish between dream
and regular experience is used to argue that there is no certain
knowledge since a person can never be sure that they are not dreaming. Some critics assert that global skepticism is self-refuting
because denying the existence of knowledge is itself a knowledge claim.
Another objection says that the abstract reasoning leading to
skepticism is not convincing enough to overrule common sense.
Fallibilism is another response to skepticism. Fallibilists agree with skeptics that absolute certainty is impossible.
They reject the assumption that knowledge requires absolute certainty,
leading them to the conclusion that fallible knowledge exists. They emphasize the need to keep an open and inquisitive mind,
acknowledging that doubt can never be fully excluded, even for
well-established knowledge claims like thoroughly tested scientific
theories.
Epistemic relativism is related to skepticism but differs in that
it does not question the existence of knowledge in general. Instead,
epistemic relativists only reject the notion of universal epistemic
standards or absolute principles that apply equally to everyone. This
means that what a person knows depends on subjective criteria or social
conventions used to assess epistemic status.
The debate between empiricism and rationalism centers on the origins of human knowledge. Empiricism emphasizes that sense experience is the primary source of all knowledge. Some empiricists illustrate this view by describing the mind as a blank slate
that only develops ideas about the external world through the sense
data received from the sensory organs. According to them, the mind can
attain various additional insights by comparing impressions, combining
them, generalizing to form more abstract ideas, and deducing new
conclusions from them. Empiricists say that all these mental operations
depend on sensory material and do not function on their own.
Even though rationalists usually accept sense experience as one source of knowledge, they argue that certain forms of knowledge are directly accessed through reason without sense experience, like knowledge of mathematical and logical truths. Some forms of rationalism state that the mind possesses inborn ideas, accessible without sensory assistance. Others assert that there is an additional cognitive faculty, sometimes called rational intuition, through which people acquire nonempirical knowledge. Some rationalists limit their discussion to the origin of concepts, saying that the mind relies on inborn categories to understand the world and organize experience.
Diagram
of foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism with arrows symbolizing
support between beliefs. According to foundationalism, some basic
beliefs are justified without support from other beliefs. According to
coherentism, justification requires that beliefs mutually support each
other. According to infinitism, justification requires that beliefs form
infinite support chains.
Foundationalists and coherentists disagree about the structure of knowledge. Foundationalism distinguishes between basic and non-basic beliefs. A
belief is basic if it is justified directly, meaning that its validity
does not depend on the support of other beliefs. A belief is non-basic if it is justified by another belief. For example, the belief that it rained last night is a non-basic belief
if it is inferred from the observation that the street is wet. According to foundationalism, basic beliefs are the foundation on which
all other knowledge is built while non-basic beliefs act as the
superstructure resting on this foundation.
Coherentists reject the distinction between basic and non-basic
beliefs, saying that the justification of any belief depends on other
beliefs. They assert that a belief must align with other beliefs to
amount to knowledge. This occurs when beliefs are consistent and support
each other. According to coherentism, justification is a holistic aspect determined by the whole system of beliefs, which resembles an interconnected web.
Foundherentism
is an intermediary position combining elements of both foundationalism
and coherentism. It accepts the distinction between basic and non-basic
beliefs while asserting that the justification of non-basic beliefs
depends on coherence with other beliefs.
Infinitism
presents a less common alternative perspective on the structure of
knowledge. It agrees with coherentism that there are no basic beliefs
while rejecting the view that beliefs can support each other in a circular manner.
Instead, it argues that beliefs form infinite justification chains, in
which each link of the chain supports the belief following it and is
supported by the belief preceding it.
Alvin Goldman was an influential defender of externalism.
The disagreement between internalism and externalism is about the sources of justification.Internalists say that justification depends only on factors within the
individual, such as perceptual experience, memories, and other beliefs.
This view emphasizes the importance of the cognitive perspective of the
individual in the form of their mental states. It is commonly associated
with the idea that the relevant factors are accessible, meaning that
the individual can become aware of their reasons for holding a justified
belief through introspection and reflection.
Evidentialism is an influential internalist view, asserting that justification depends on the possession of evidence. In this context, evidence for a belief is any information in the
individual's mind that supports the belief. For example, the perceptual
experience of rain is evidence for the belief that it is raining.
Evidentialists suggest various other forms of evidence, including
memories, intuitions, and other beliefs. According to evidentialism, a belief is justified if the individual's
evidence supports it and they hold the belief on the basis of this
evidence.
Externalism, by contrast, asserts that at least some relevant factors of knowledge are external to the individual. For instance, when considering the belief that a cup of coffee stands
on the table, externalists are not primarily interested in the
subjective perceptual experience that led to this belief. Instead, they
focus on objective factors, like the quality of the person's eyesight,
their ability to differentiate coffee from other beverages, and the
circumstances under which they observed the cup. A key motivation of many forms of externalism is that justification
makes it more likely that a belief is true. Based on this view,
justification is external to the extent that some factors contributing
to this likelihood are not part of the believer's cognitive perspective.
Reliabilism is an externalist theory asserting that a reliable connection between belief and truth is required for justification. Some reliabilists explain this in terms of reliable processes.
According to this view, a belief is justified if it is produced by a
reliable process, like perception. A belief-formation process is deemed
reliable if most of the beliefs it generates are true. An alternative
view focuses on beliefs rather than belief-formation processes, saying
that a belief is justified if it is a reliable indicator of the fact it
presents. This means that the belief tracks the fact: the person
believes it because it is true but would not believe it otherwise.
Virtue epistemology,
another type of externalism, asserts that a belief is justified if it
manifests intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues are capacities or
traits that perform cognitive functions and help people form true
beliefs. Suggested examples include faculties, like vision, memory, and
introspection, and character traits, like open-mindedness.
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. 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. Experimental epistemologists base their research on empirical evidence about common knowledge practices. 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. 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.
Particularism and generalism disagree about the right 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. Other methods in contemporary epistemology aim to extract philosophical insights from ordinary language or look at the role of knowledge in making assertions and guiding actions.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
The work of Elizabeth S. Anderson combines the perspectives of feminist, social, and naturalized epistemology.
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. 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. Some postmodern and feminist thinkers adopt a 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. Another critical approach, found in decolonial scholarship, opposes the
global influence of Western knowledge systems. It seeks to undermine
Western hegemony and decolonize knowledge.
The decolonial outlook is also present in African epistemology. Grounded in African ontology, it emphasizes the interconnectedness of reality as a continuum between knowing subject and known object. It understands knowledge as a holistic
phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational
aspects, extending beyond the limits of the physical domain.
Another epistemological tradition is found in ancient Indian philosophy. Its diverse schools of thought examine different sources of knowledge, called pramāṇa. Perception, inference, and testimony are sources discussed by most schools. Other sources only considered by some schools are non-perception, which leads to knowledge of absences, and presumption. Buddhist epistemology focuses on immediate experience, understood as the presentation of unique particulars without secondary cognitive processes, like thought and desire. 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. Mīmāṃsā epistemology considers the holy scriptures known as the Vedas as a key source of knowledge, addressing the problem of their right interpretation. Jain epistemology states that reality is many-sided, meaning that no single viewpoint can capture the entirety of truth.
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. It contrasts with the history of epistemology, which presents,
reconstructs, and evaluates epistemological theories of philosophers in
the past.
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 individual observations can support universal scientific laws. Other topics include the nature of scientific evidence and the aims of science. 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.
Distinct areas of epistemology are dedicated to specific sources of knowledge. Examples are the epistemology of perception, the epistemology of memory, and the epistemology of testimony. In the epistemology of perception, 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 illusions.
Epistemological issues are found in most areas of philosophy. The epistemology of logic examines how people know that an argument is valid. For example, it explores how logicians justify that modus ponens is a correct rule of inference or that all contradictions are false. Epistemologists of metaphysics investigate whether knowledge of the basic structure of reality is possible and what sources this knowledge could have. Knowledge of moral statements, like the claim that lying is wrong, belongs to the epistemology of ethics. It studies the role of ethical intuitions, coherence among moral beliefs, and the problem of moral disagreement. 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. Religious epistemology
studies the role of knowledge and justification for religious doctrines
and practices. It evaluates the reliability of evidence from religious experience and holy scriptures while also asking whether the norms of reason should be applied to religious faith.
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. Epistemologists of modality examine knowledge about what is possible and necessary. Epistemic problems that arise when two people have diverging opinions
on a topic are covered by the epistemology of disagreement. Epistemologists of ignorance are interested in epistemic faults and gaps in knowledge.
Related fields
Epistemology and psychology
were not defined as distinct fields until the 19th century; earlier
investigations about knowledge often do not fit neatly into today's
academic categories. Both contemporary disciplines study beliefs and the mental processes
responsible for their formation and change. One key contrast is that
psychology describes what beliefs people have and how they acquire them,
thereby explaining why someone has a specific belief. The focus of
epistemology is on evaluating beliefs, leading to a judgment about
whether a belief is justified and rational in a particular case. Epistemology also shares a close connection with cognitive science, which understands mental events as processes that transform information. Artificial intelligence relies on the insights of epistemology and cognitive science to implement concrete solutions to problems associated with knowledge representation and automatic reasoning.
Logic
is the study of correct reasoning. For epistemology, it is relevant to
inferential knowledge, which arises when a person reasons from one known
fact to another. This is the case, for example, when inferring that it rained based on the observation that the streets are wet. Whether an inferential belief amounts to knowledge depends on the form of reasoning used, in particular, that the process does not violate the laws of logic. Another overlap between the two fields is found in the epistemic approach to fallacies. Fallacies are faulty arguments based on incorrect reasoning. The epistemic approach to fallacies explains why they are faulty,
stating that arguments aim to expand knowledge. According to this view,
an argument is a fallacy if it fails to do so. A further intersection is found in epistemic logic, which uses formal logical devices to study epistemological concepts like knowledge and belief.
Both decision theory
and epistemology are interested in the foundations of rational thought
and the role of beliefs. Unlike many approaches in epistemology, the
main focus of decision theory lies less in the theoretical and more in
the practical side, exploring how beliefs are translated into action. Decision theorists examine the reasoning involved in decision-making and the standards of good decisions, identifying beliefs as a central aspect of decision-making. One of
their innovations is to distinguish between weaker and stronger beliefs,
which helps them consider the effects of uncertainty on decisions.
Epistemology and education
have a shared interest in knowledge, with one difference being that
education focuses on the transmission of knowledge, exploring the roles
of both learner and teacher. Learning theory examines how people acquire knowledge. Behavioral learning theories explain the process in terms of behavior changes, for example, by associating a certain response with a particular stimulus. Cognitive learning theories study how the cognitive processes that affect knowledge acquisition transform information. Pedagogy looks at the transmission of knowledge from the teacher's perspective, exploring the teaching methods they may employ. In teacher-centered methods, the teacher serves as the main authority
delivering knowledge and guiding the learning process. In student-centered methods, the teacher primarily supports and facilitates the learning process, allowing students to take a more active role. The beliefs students have about knowledge, called personal epistemology, influence their intellectual development and learning success.
The anthropology
of knowledge examines how knowledge is acquired, stored, retrieved, and
communicated. It studies the social and cultural circumstances that
affect how knowledge is reproduced and changes, covering the role of
institutions like university departments and scientific journals as well
as face-to-face discussions and online communications. This field has a
broad concept of knowledge, encompassing various forms of understanding
and culture, including practical skills. Unlike epistemology, it is not
interested in whether a belief is true or justified but in how
understanding is reproduced in society. A closely related field, the sociology of knowledge
has a similar conception of knowledge. It explores how physical,
demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors impact knowledge. This
field examines in what sociohistorical contexts knowledge emerges and
the effects it has on people, for example, how socioeconomic conditions
are related to the dominant ideology in a society.
History
Early reflections on the nature and sources of knowledge are found in ancient history. In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato (427–347 BCE) studied what knowledge is, examining how it differs from true opinion by being based on good reasons. He proposed that learning is a form of recollection in which the soul remembers what it already knew but had forgotten. Plato's student Aristotle
(384–322 BCE) was particularly interested in scientific knowledge,
exploring the role of sensory experience and the process of making
inferences from general principles. Aristotle's ideas influenced the Hellenistic schools of philosophy, which began to arise in the 4th century BCE and included Epicureanism, Stoicism, and skepticism. The Epicureans had an empiricist outlook, stating that sensations are always accurate and act as the supreme standard of judgments. The Stoics defended a similar position but confined their trust to lucid and specific sensations, which they regarded as true. The skeptics questioned that knowledge is possible, recommending instead suspension of judgment to attain a state of tranquility. Emerging in the 3rd century CE and inspired by Plato's philosophy, Neoplatonism distinguished knowledge from true belief, arguing that knowledge is infallible and limited to the realm of immaterial forms.
The Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti developed a causal theory of knowledge.
The Upanishads, philosophical scriptures composed in ancient India between 700 and 300 BCE, examined how people acquire knowledge, including the role of introspection, comparison, and deduction. In the 6th century BCE, the school of Ajñana developed a radical skepticism questioning the possibility and usefulness of knowledge. By contrast, the school of Nyaya,
which emerged in the 2nd century BCE, asserted that knowledge is
possible. It provided a systematic treatment of how people acquire
knowledge, distinguishing between valid and invalid sources. When Buddhist philosophers became interested in epistemology, they relied on concepts developed in Nyaya and other traditions. Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti (6th or 7th century CE) analyzed the process of knowing as a series of causally related events.
Ancient Chinese philosophers
understood knowledge as an interconnected phenomenon fundamentally
linked to ethical behavior and social involvement. Many saw wisdom as
the goal of attaining knowledge. Mozi
(470–391 BCE) proposed a pragmatic approach to knowledge using
historical records, sensory evidence, and practical outcomes to validate
beliefs. Mencius (c. 372–289 BCE) explored analogical reasoning as a source of knowledge and employed this method to criticize Mozi. Xunzi (c. 310–220 BCE)
aimed to combine empirical observation and rational inquiry. He
emphasized the importance of clarity and standards of reasoning without
excluding the role of feeling and emotion.
The relation between reason and faith was a central topic in the medieval period. In Arabic–Persian philosophy, al-Farabi (c. 870–950) and Averroes (1126–1198) discussed how philosophy and theology interact, debating which one is a better vehicle to truth. Al-Ghazali (c. 1056–1111) criticized many core teachings of previous Islamic philosophers, saying that they relied on unproven assumptions that did not amount to knowledge. Similarly in Western philosophy, Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) proposed that theological teaching and philosophical inquiry are in harmony and complement each other. Formulating a more critical approach, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) argued against unquestioned theological authorities and said that all things are open to rational doubt. Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) developed an empiricist theory, stating that "nothing is in the intellect unless it first appeared in the senses". According to an early form of direct realism proposed by William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349), perception of mind-independent objects happens directly without intermediaries. Meanwhile, in 14th-century India, Gaṅgeśa developed a reliabilist theory of knowledge and considered the problems of testimony and fallacies. In China, Wang Yangming
(1472–1529) explored the unity of knowledge and action, holding that
moral knowledge is inborn and can be attained by overcoming
self-interest.
The course of modern philosophy was shaped by René Descartes
(1596–1650), who stated that philosophy must begin from a position of
indubitable knowledge of first principles. Inspired by skepticism, he
aimed to find absolutely certain knowledge by encountering truths that
cannot be doubted. He thought that this is the case for the assertion "I think, therefore I am", from which he constructed the rest of his philosophical system. Descartes, together with Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), belonged to the school of rationalism, which asserts that the mind possesses innate ideas independent of experience. John Locke (1632–1704) rejected this view in favor of an empiricism according to which the mind is a blank slate.
This means that all ideas depend on experience, either as "ideas of
sense", which are directly presented through the senses, or as "ideas of
reflection", which the mind creates by reflecting on its own
activities. David Hume
(1711–1776) used this idea to explore the limits of what people can
know. He said that knowledge of facts is never certain, adding that
knowledge of relations between ideas, like mathematical truths, can be
certain but contains no information about the world. Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804) sought a middle ground between rationalism and empiricism
by identifying a type of knowledge overlooked by Hume. For Kant, this
knowledge pertains to principles that underlie and structure all
experience, such as spatial and temporal relations and fundamental categories of understanding.
In the 19th century and influenced by Kant's philosophy, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770–1831) rejected empiricism by arguing that sensory impressions
alone cannot amount to knowledge since all knowledge is actively
structured by the knowing subject. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), by contrast, defended a wide-sweeping form of empiricism and explained knowledge of general truths through inductive reasoning. Charles Peirce (1839–1914) thought that all knowledge is fallible, emphasizing that knowledge seekers should remain open to revising their beliefs in light of new evidence. He used this idea to argue against Cartesian foundationalism, which seeks absolutely certain truths.
In the 20th century, fallibilism was further explored by J. L. Austin (1911–1960) and Karl Popper (1902–1994). In continental philosophy, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) applied the skeptical idea of suspending judgment to the study of experience. By not judging whether an experience is accurate, he tried to describe its internal structure instead. Influenced by earlier empiricists, logical positivists, like A. J. Ayer (1910–1989), said that all knowledge is either empirical or analytic, rejecting any form of metaphysical knowledge. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) developed an empiricist sense-datum theory, distinguishing between direct knowledge by acquaintance of sense data and indirect knowledge by description, which is inferred from knowledge by acquaintance. Common sense had a central place in G. E. Moore's
(1873–1958) epistemology. He used trivial observations, like the fact
that he has two hands, to argue against abstract philosophical theories
that deviate from common sense. Ordinary language philosophy, as practiced by the late Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), is a similar approach that tries to extract epistemological insights from how ordinary language is used.
Edmund Gettier (1927–2021) conceived counterexamples
against the idea that knowledge is justified true belief. These
counterexamples prompted many philosophers to suggest alternative definitions of knowledge. Developed by philosophers such as Alvin Goldman (1938–2024), reliabilism
emerged as one of the alternatives, asserting that knowledge requires
reliable sources and shifting the focus away from justification. Virtue epistemologists, such as Ernest Sosa (1940–present) and Linda Zagzebski
(1946–present), analyse belief formation in terms of the intellectual
virtues or cognitive competencies involved in the process. Naturalized epistemology, as conceived by Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000), employs concepts and ideas from the natural sciences to formulate its theories. Other developments in late 20th-century epistemology were the emergence of social, feminist, and historical epistemology.
.jpg)
.jpg)
