Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Epistemic Peers
“Epistemic Peers” is a philosophical term creeping it’s way into the mainstream. The term might not be familiar, but the concept it.
When discussed, it is usually put into the negative – “No one has epistemic peers.” When explained it sounds rational, but it is the exact opposite. “No one has epistemic peers” means no one has the same level or type of knowledge. What’s wrong with that idea? After all it sounds like common sense. Have you noticed how often it is not the “idea” itself understood at a surface level that is the problem; but rather the consequence of the idea? For example, equality and tolerance, and such, are worthy ideals. The consequence of equality for some though is equal outcomes not equal opportunity. That approach is impossible from a practical application since it rewards and punishes unequally based upon performance. While not keeping score in a tee-ball game is acceptable, hownwould that work in the MLB World Series? There couldn’t even be a World series!
Now back to “no one has epistemic peers”. What’s wrong with it? It makes knowledge totally subjective wherein truth becomes dependent upon “my” experience of, and agreement to, it being truth. “My” defense against accepting truth can simply be, “Well, I don’t agree because I haven’t experienced it, therefore it can’t be true.”
In philosophical circles, this is becoming a major argument for the denial that one can “prove” the existence of God.
In religious circles, “truth” then is reduced to, “What does this passage mean to you?” (emphasis not on the meaning of the passage, but on “to you”). Or, “This is just my interpretation of the truth (if there is a truth)”. Don’t get me wrong, everyone can be and will be wrong at times. The problem becomes when we deny anyone – including ourselves – can be right and have the truth. What the conclusion becomes is a “soft agnosticism” that each one can “believe”, but no one can “know” to the degree of religious knowledge. How could one then even evangelize or commend that true doctrine even exists or can be known? But then again, all ideas are equal to the individual who holds to them, and we must be tolerant of such “truth anarchists”.
Not having epistemic (how and why we know things) peers (people with the same level of knowledge and experience) leads to, denial and self-contradiction. Notice how both come out of the same mouth: ““What is truth?” said Pilate. (DENIAL) After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no grounds for charging him” (THAT REQUIRES AN ASSERTION THAT TRUTH EXISTS) (CSB’17 John 18:38). As we can see, this is not a new problem.
Comments