Sources of Knowledge and Disagreement

So in my last post I admitted to being a skeptic. But I am also a pragmatist. It doesn't matter if we can satisfy some stringent philosophical definition of knowledge. I know the sun is going to come up tomorrow. It's just that when I say "know" and when a philosopher says "know", we mean different things. As a wise man once said, "'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings." Most people have never even encountered a philosophical definition of knowledge, but they still make claims of knowledge.

The meaning of words is actually subjective. I mean, to some extent, we agree on what words mean or we wouldn't be able to communicate. But there is room for disagreement or miscommunication. When I say I "know" something, I mean that I believe there is a high enough probability that I am correct that it's not worth it to me to worry about being wrong. I believe that my senses are fallible, but not often enough that it's worth worrying about whether what I see and hear is real. I believe that not every scientific experiment is perfect, but that when enough of them over the years agree with each other, that they can reveal things about the world that are close to certain. And that the people who conduct those experiments and report on them can be trusted enough once a certain consensus seems to be reached. There are probably other sources of knowledge that I would agree with, and many more that I do not.

The problem arises when people do not agree on what constitutes a valid source of knowledge. Or if they prioritize their sources of knowledge differently. For instance, some people may prioritize their own anecdotal experience over the collective testimony of many others. Or they may derive knowledge from a holy text even when it contradicts available scientific evidence. Unfortunately, it is impossible to constructively argue with someone whose epistemology differs from your own. This is the source of a lot of disagreements in modern society.

I often see this with some people who, like me, are of a more scientific bent. When they get into an argument with someone of different beliefs, they can provide mountains of evidence to support their point. Yet they are still sometimes surprised or outraged when their arguments have little effect. It is important to recognize when someone's epistemology does not match our own, that we need to frame our arguments differently. We need to empathize, even when we find their views wrong, so that we can make arguments that might actually make a difference.