DEFINATION OF ” EPISTEMOLOGY”

Episteme- Greek word for knowledge, science

 “-Ology”, suffix which signifies the “doctrine or
study of”
Doctrine/theory or study of knowledge
The study of knowledge
 Its nature
 Its Possible Scope
 Its Necessary Limits
EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
 What is knowledge?
 How is knowledge acquired?
 What do people know?
 How do we know what we know?
 Is human knowledge trustworthy?
 Can our senses be trusted?
 Difference between opinion, knowledge and
wisdom ?
 WHAT IS “EPISTEMOLOGY”

Nature of kn Sources of k
owledge nowledge
Logic and kn The role of t
owledge he mind
 Nature of knowledge
Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope
of knowledge and justified belief (Walumbwa et al, 2009).
 It analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates
to similar notions such as truth, belief and justification
(Brown et al, 2005, piccolo et al, 2010).

It also deals with the means of production of

knowledge, as well as skepticism about
different knowledge claims (Walumbwa et al, 2009)
 Sources of knowledge
Much of the debate in epistemology centers on
four areas:
The philosophical analysis of the nature
of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts
as truth, belief, and justification,
Various problems of skepticism,
The sources and scope of knowledge and
justified belief
The criteria for knowledge
Logic and knowledge
Epistemic logic gets its start with the recognition
that expressions like ‘knows that’ or ‘believes that’
have systematic properties that are amenable to
formal study (Brown et al, 2005, piccolo et al, 2010).
In addition to its relevance for traditional
philosophical problems, epistemic logic has many
applications in computer science and economics.
Examples range from robotics, network security
and cryptography applications to the study of social
and coalitional interactions of various kinds.
The role of the mind
Philosophy: Epistemology "Is justification
internal or external to one's own mind?" The
kind of knowledge usually Empiricism, which
emphasizes .
The role of experience, especially
experience based on perceptual observations
by the five senses in the formation of ideas,
while discounting the notion of innate ideas
(Dickson et al., 2001).
WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Expertise and skills acquired by a
person through experience or education,
the theoretical or practical understanding
of a subject
What is known in a particular field or
in total facts and information
Awareness or familiarity gained by
experience of a fact or situation.
THE STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE
is merely concerned with 4 questions:

What are the necessary

and sufficient
conditions of knowledge? What are its sources?

Epistemology

What is its structure? What are its limits?

What are sources of Knowledge ?
Perception Our perceptual faculties are our five senses ; sight,
touch, hearing, smelling, and tasting introspection Through
Introspection, one knows what mental states one is in whether one is
thirsty, tired, excited, or depressed (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck,
2009)
 Memory Memory is the capacity to retain knowledge acquired
in the Memory past.
 Reason Some beliefs would appear to be justified solely by the
use of reason. Justification of that kind is said to be a priori: prior to
any kind of experience.
 Testimony Testimony relies on others to acquire knowledge
and communicate it to us. Some deny that testimony can be a source
of knowledge, and insist that beliefs gained through testimony must
be verified in order to be knowledge
 What is structure of Knowledge ?

“The debate over the structure of

knowledge and justification is
primarily one among those who hold
that knowledge requires justification
From this point of view, the
structure of knowledge derives from
the structure of justification”
 What are the necessary and sufficient
conditions of knowledge

Necessity and sufficiency the assertion

that one statement is a necessary and
sufficient condition of another means
that the former statement is true if and
only if the latter is true
 That is, the two statements must be
either simultaneously true or
simultaneously false.
What are limits of Knowledge
Knowledge and its Limits presents a
systematic new conception of knowledge as
a kind of mental stage sensitive to the
knower's environment.
It makes a major contribution to the
debate between externalist and internal list
philosophies of mind, and breaks radically
with the epistemological tradition of
analyzing knowledge in terms of true belief
 What are limits of Knowledge
 The theory casts new light on such
philosophical problems as skepticism,
evidence, probability and assertion, realism
and anti-realism, and the limits of what can
be known.
 The arguments are illustrated by rigorous
models based on epistemic logic and
probability theory. The result is a new way of
doing epistemology and a notable
contribution to the philosophy of mind.
 Kant
o Metaphysics. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the
most influential philosophers in the history of Western
philosophy
o His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics,
and aesthetics have had a profound impact on almost
every philosophical movement that followed him.
o Philosophy background: Kant's epistemology in a
nutshell. Kant (1724-1804): universal truths possible
because of the universal operations of the intelligent
(human?) mind. 1. Distinction between synthetic (new)
versus analytic (tautological) knowledge, and a priori
versus a posteriori knowledge.
Nietzsch
e
The will to power
in metaphysics and epistemology means
that things that are “real” are the things
we do or can have power over.
The classical notions of truth and
knowledge are passive and ineffectual.
They are, for Nietzsche, meaningless
and signs of weakness
Buddha
For Buddhist thinkers philosophy should aid one in eliminating
suffering and obtaining happiness.
They maintain that to achieve those ends, one must eliminate
ignorance (avidyā ), a fundamental mental flaw that is suffering's
basic cause. Although variously construed ignorance inevitably
involves the mistaken belief that a fixed, unchanging personal
essence, or ātman, lies at the core of each person's identity.
Hence, to eliminate ignorance one must eradicate that belief, and
to do so Buddhist philosophers stress the importance of seeing things
as they are a corrective cognitive state through which one knows that
persons necessarily lack essenc
The need to give an account of such a state leads to a concern with
epistemology in Buddhist thought from its earliest period (500 BCE–
100 CE) in South Asia.
Plato
Plato's Epistemology holds that knowledge of Platonic Ideas is
innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in
the soul, often under the midwife-like guidance of an interrogator
 In several dialogues by Plato, the character Socrates presents the
view that each soul existed before birth with the Form of the Good
and a perfect knowledge of Ideas.
Thus, when an Idea is "learned" it is actually just "recalled” Plato
drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and
mere true opinion, which is not certain.
 Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge
derives from the world of timeless Forms, or essences. In
The Republic, these concepts were illustrated using the
metaphor of the sun, the analogy of the divided line, and the
allegory of the cave.
Confucius
Averroes
Epistemology is the branch
of philosophy concerned with the theory of
knowledge.
Epistemology studies the nature of
knowledge, justification, and the rationality of
belief.
Much of the debate in epistemology centers
on four areas the philosophical analysis of the
nature of knowledge and how it relates to such
concepts.
Propositional knowledge can be of two types
depending on its source
A priori (or non-empirical)
 where knowledge is possible by use of reason
(e.g. knowledge of logical truths and of abstract
claims)
A posteriori (or empirical)
where knowledge is possible only subsequent to
certain sense experiences, in addition to the use of
reason (e.g. knowledge of the colour or shape of a
physical object, or knowledge of geographical
locations).
KNOWLEDGE

Belief Truth

Justification Gettier problem

BELIEF

Let us begin with the observation that knowledge

is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's
mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything.
Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental
state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to
describe desires and intentions, these cannot
constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind
of belief.
 If one has no beliefs about a particular matter,
one cannot have knowledge about it.
TRUTH

Knowledge, then, requires belief. Of course, not all

beliefs constitute knowledge.
 Belief is necessary but not sufficient for
knowledge.
We are all sometimes mistaken in what we
believe; in other words, while some of our beliefs
are true, others are false.
As we try to acquire knowledge, then, we are
trying to increase our stock of true beliefs (while
simultaneously minimizing our false beliefs).
KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is 
the awareness and understanding of 
particular  aspects  of reality.  It  is  the 
clear, lucid information gained through the 
process of reason applied to reality.
The  traditional  approach  is  that 
knowledge requires three necessary and
sufficient conditions, so that knowledge 
can  then  be  defined  as "justified true
belief“:
JUSTIFICATION

Knowledge,  then,  requires  factual  belief. 

However,  this  does  not  suffice  to  capture  the 
nature  of  knowledge.  Just  as  knowledge 
requires successfully achieving the objective of 
true belief, it also requires success with regard 
to the formation of that belief. 
In  other  words,  not  all  true  beliefs  constitute 
knowledge;  only  true  beliefs  arrived  at  in  the 
right way constitute knowledge.
GETTIER PROBLEM
Edmund Gettier is best known for a short paper entitled
'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?' published in 1963,
which called into question the theory of knowledge that
had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of
years.
 This in turn called into question the actual value of
philosophy if such an obvious and easy counterexample to
a major theory could exist without anyone noticing it for
thousands of years. In a few pages, Gettier argued that
there are situations in which one's belief may be justified
and true, yet fail to count as knowledge.
GETTIER PROBLEM

Edmund Gettier called this traditional 
theory  of  knowledge  into  question  by 
claiming  that  there  are  certain 
circumstances in which one does not
have knowledge,  even  when  all  of 
the  above conditions are
met (his Gettier-cases)
 NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION
EXTERNALISM AND INTERNALISM

Another  debate  focuses  on  whether  justification 

is external or internal: 
Externalism holds  that  factors  deemed  "external" 
(meaning outside of the psychological states of those 
who are gaining the knowledge) can be conditions of 
knowledge,  so  that  if  the  relevant  facts  justifying  a 
proposition are external then they are acceptable. 
Internalism,  on  the  other  hand,  claims  that  all 
knowledge-yielding  conditions  are within the 
psychological states of those who gain knowledge. 
MEMORY

 Memory allows us to know something that we 
knew in the past, even, perhaps, if we no longer 
remember the original justification. 
Positivism
 “only scientific knowledge is the true knowledge
of the world perceived through senses (the
observable phenomenon)” (Auguste ,1842).
Example: The body temperature.
Antipositivism
“knowledge cannot be studied with the scientific
method of investigation applied to the natural
world”.
Example:
The color green sleeps angrily.
Post Positivism
“All observation is imperfect and has
error and that all theory is revisable”.
(Hacking, 1983)

Example:
Every one is inherently biased by their
cultural experiences, and world views.
Each construct of our view is based on
our perception of the world.
 Realism
“Is the view that the object exists in reality
independently of our conceptual scheme”.
(Black Burn,
2005)
Anti Realism
“Truth of a statement rests on its correspondence
to an external, independent reality”.
(Baron and Engle,
2010).
Example:
Types of Realism
Indirect Realism/critical Realism
Is the view that the world we see in
conscious experience is not the real world
itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality.
We only see images not things directly
(John Locke, 1700).
Example:
When you watch international cricket match
on television for a sponsor in a prominent
position it’s a illusion. It is in fact painted on
Types of Realism(Cont)
Direct Realism/New Realism
“when one is conscious of an object, it is an
error to say that there are two distinct facts:
knowledge of the object in a mind, and an
extra-mental object in itself” (Holt et al ,
1912).
What you see is what you get.
What we experience through our sense
portrays the world accurately.
Conventionalist Epistemology

 “All ideas must be derived from experience” (David

Hume, 1739)
Example:
The sun will rise tomorrow.

It is possible that all ideas are derived beyond the

experience. (Immanuel Kant, 1781)

Example:
We get knowledge from other sources such as parents,
teachers, and friends.
Feminist Epistemology
Concerned with the way in which
gender influences our concept of
knowledge and "practices of
inquiry and justification".
(Anderson, 2004)
 Feminist Epistemology
Standpoint Theory.
Is a theory that feminist social science should be
practiced from the standpoint of women or particular
groups of women. (Hill
Collins, 2009)
Feminist Postmodernism
Moving beyond the liberal feminism and fundamental
feminism. (Garratta,
1995)
Feminist Empiricism
Feminist theories objectively proven through
evidence.
Epistemic injustice
“When someone is wronged in their capacity
as a knower” (Miranda Fricker, 2009).
Types of Epistemic Injustice
Testimonial injustice
Consists in prejudices that cause one to "give
a reduced level of trustworthiness to a
speaker's word.
Example
Woman who due to her gender is not believed in a business
meeting.
Types of Epistemic
injustice
Hermeneutical injustice
When the speakers do not have proper
resources to make a claim. (Miranda
Fricker, 2009).
Example
When the language of sexual harassment
is not available those who experience it
lacked the resources to make a claim.
Virtue Epistemology
“Focus on the argument that
belief is an ethical process thus
subject to the intellectual virtue
or one's own life and personal
experiences”.
(Jay Wood, 1998)
Types of Virtue Epistemology

Virtue Responsibilism
conceive of intellectual virtues
as good intellectual character
traits, traits like attentiveness,
fair-mindedness, open-
mindedness, and courage
(Sosa, 1980)
Types of Virtue Epistemology

Virtue Reliabilism
Conceive of intellectual virtues as
stable and reliable cognitive
abilities or powers and cite vision,
self-examination, and memory.

(Sosa, 2009).
Moral Epistemology
Moral epistemology is the study of moral
knowledge and related phenomena.
(Aaron Zimmerman, 2010).
Moral facts and moral values such as
beliefs, feelings and attitudes are objective
and independent of our perception. (Brink,
1989 and Railton, 1986)
Example:
“Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
Religious Epistemology
An approach to epistemological questions from
a religious perspective.
Evidentialism
Reformed Epistemology
Religious Pluralism
Evidentialism
Belief in God is rational if only it is
based on reasons which provide
adequate evident to support it.
Basic belief is belief if
Evident to the sense (e-g There is tree
outside my window).
Self evident (e-g 1+2=3)
About one’s immediate experience(e-g
I am feeling pain).
Reformed Epistemology
It is possible for a religious belief to
be entirely rational or justified even
if there is no evidence supporting
these beliefs.
Perceptual belief (I see a tree).
Memory belief (I had a breakfast
this morning).
Belief about other person (that
person is in pain).
Religious Pluralism

•Is an attitude regarding the diversity

of religious beliefs, practices and
tradition that are co-existing in a
society.
• Different people give different
perceptual reports about an
automobile accident.
Different ways of predicting the
 Rationalistic Epistemology
• Justified true belief
• (Plato and Cooper, 2001)

• S knows p if (and only if)

i. p is true
ii. S believes that p is true
iii. S is justified in believing that p is true
What is the basis of justification?
•Evidentialism: Whether proposition is
reasonable/rational from believer's own
point of view. (Steup, 2005)
•Reliabilism
•Reliability of the sources
•Results from a cognitive origin that is
reliable. (Steup,2005)
 What is the basis of
justification?
•Internalistic
•Justification of true beliefs is based on
internal processes
•E.g. perception, representation,
introspection, and/or logical deduction
•Justification is independent from external
conditions
•Externalist
•Factors external to the believer's mind
•Source of a belief
Social Epistemology
•Knowledge is produced and arranged
exclusively within social processes
•knowledge is not what is true but only
what becomes accepted and
established in the social context of a
scientific community.
•Creating knowledge is not to discover
the truth but to prevail in the struggle
for acceptance within specific social
Creation of Social
Knowledge
• Epistemological closure
• Process by which knowledge is socially legitimized and
made durable
(Patriotta, p. 44
• Rational criteria like justified true belief is non-
relevant
• Knowledge is;
• Not what is true but what is accepted
• Not justified but what a community agrees on
• Not produced by individuals according to clear-cut
rational rules, but produced in a collective and
controversial social process
Comparison of Rational and Social Epistemology
Knowledge Rational Approach Social Approach
as
Content Monism Non-monism
Subset of truth Accepted in
community
Knowing Non-relativism Relativism
S knows p if S knows P if
S believes p P is accepted in
P=true community
S is justified in believing P

Knowledge Individualism Collectivism

Production Justify true belief by; Social Process
Observation
Reasoning
Need for New Epistemological View
Of course, Galileo and Newton and Darwin and
Einstein were individuals of extraordinary
intellect, but what made their brilliant ideas
knowledge were the processes of critical
reception. (. . .) Idea or belief generation is not
the same as knowledge production, which
involves processes of validation (. . .)
Normative theory of social knowledge

•Social processes as knowledge-

validating processes
•knowledge creation is not only a
logical process but a socially
embedded transformation
•Validation
•Critical Evaluation
Epistemological
Considerations…
•Interpret-ivism
•Understanding differences between
humans as social actors.
•Subjective meanings and social
phenomena.
•Focus upon the details of situation.
•A reality behind these details
Interpretevism
• Phenomenology
• The way in which we as humans make sense of
the world around us
• Symbolic interactionism
• Humans are in a continual process of
interpreting the social world
• Interpret the actions of others with whom we
interact
• This interpretation leads to adjustment of our
own meanings and actions
Pragmatism

•Either or both observable

phenomena and subjective
meanings provide acceptable
Knowledge dependent upon
the research question.
•Integrate different perspectives
 Paradigms in Management
Epistemology
Functional
• Objective / Systemic / Hard orientation / Quantitative
• Epistemological model – Natural science
• Assumptions
• Knowledge cumulating
• Verification
• Scientific Method
• Division into dependent and independent variables
• Mathematical modelling and
• Quantification
(Sulkowski, 2010)
Symbolic Interpretative
•Relativist / Qualitative / Soft orientation /
Humanistic
•Knowledge does not exist objectively but;
•Continuously maintained, reconstructed
and modified by individuals
•Process are created;
•Legislation
•Internalization
•Collective consensus (Sulkowski, 2010)
Comparison & Application in Organization
Criteria Functional-systemic Symbolic-
perspective interpretative
perspective

Nature of Economic, objectively Socially created, intra-

organization given subjective
perception

Research Generalization, Understanding,

Objectives verification, predicting description,
synthesis,
Researcher’s Search for objective Consciousness
attitude to knowledge, entangled in
values free of values values