Bas van Fraassen - Epistemology: How Do We Know What We Know?

What do we know and how do we know it? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? What justifies us in believing what we believe? Is justified belief knowledge? These questions constitute “epistemology” – the theory of knowledge.

Bas C. van Fraassen is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[francisb]

the first example he makes about the summer vacation is one of the smartest things i’ve heard on this subject and i always carry it with me now

[dmfoneill]

"Knowledge is the shadow of truth in the light of experience." - David M. O'Neill

[earthjustice]

This is worth listening to more than once.

[Robinson]

I think Bas van Fraassen and Robert Lawrence Kuhn have the best conversations and chemistry going on, they should do a full episode together ✌️

[uncommonsensewithpastormar]

Fraassen’s point about our scientific templates fitting our sensory perception rather than the other way around is a very good one. Scientific realism commit’s what Alfred North Whitehead calls “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness” where scientific theories are deemed to be more concrete (i.e. real) than our actual experiences.

[kevinhaynes]

Robert, over the years you've spoken to all the greatest minds on this planet. You must surely have gained insight into your quest to get closer to truth. Are you closer to the truth, closer than you were when you embarked on your amazing journey?

[browngreen]

When he played the trick about being dead before June, Bas hit a key point. All HUMAN knowledge depends on being alive in a conscious perceiving state. However, brute Existence has its own way of knowledge on a different level than ours. They are not the same. We are brief meat puppet actors facing something immortal, eternal and without beginning or end.

[treasurepoem]

6:40 The look that Bas van Fraassen is giving Robert Lawrence Kuhn seems like he's thinking, come on now. But Robert Lawrence Kuhn has some very good points.

[jamesruscheinski]

human observation to gain knowledge from past complements and helps understand what is happening in present and coming in future?

[wayneasiam]

Thanks for another great video. I watch every single one.

[susanadominguez]

What was the name of the scientist he said he admires?

[Bill..N]

HOW do we KNOW what we know..? Philosophers have struggled with that question for thousands of years.. Perhaps the simplest answer is we dont.. There IS however at LEAST one thing we know is true, the scientific method is our best hope to understanding reality.. Difficult to argue against given that among ALL philosophical concepts only the scientific method provides for actual "road signs" that we are on the correct track..One opinion, peace.

[ijvgxqr]

I can only be certain of one thing - what I believe (and that is changeable).

[philrobson]

There are things we know and things we think we know. And do we know more things than we don’t know?

[earthjustice]

"knowledge that", is mediated by the cerebral cortex. It is more abstract, involving our imagination constructing and comparing models of reality. "Knowledge how" is knowledge mediated by the cerebellum, which we experience through the actions of our own body.

[booJay]

Is it fair to say we can never really know anything, that we can only ever rely on our ability to make accurate predictions about events because that's what our experiences and observations tell us? And therein lies the problem: the need to rely on ourselves.

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

*"How do we know that we know what we know?"* ... Photons, pews, colors, etc. This excellent conversation illustrates the paradox of existence and how we unwittingly digress into obfuscation trying to solve it. If you're looking for an axiom that can maybe reconcile the paradox, then here it is: Existence doesn't know how to solve the paradox of its own existence. We merely represent the most recent state of Existence trying to solve the paradox.

Existence seeks _Justification_ (just like we do) as per the *5th Law of Existence.*

In other words, when we ask ourselves, _"Why do I exist?"_ this is in actuality a 13.8-billion-year-old question.

[jamesruscheinski]

mass (m) = energy (E) / speed of causation squared (c squared)

[arthurwieczorek]

'What's the meaning of life? What's the meaning of life? What's the meaning of life?' What about What's the meaning of meaning?

[Myrriah]

The word science translates directly to chance. - The entire point is exparimeants.