What is True and How Do We Know?
The purpose of this discussion assignment is to reflect upon your understanding of epistemology, i.e., the philosophical approach to knowledge and truth. In 1-2 pages, address the following:

· Identify a belief you think is true.

· Identify and explain a philosophical account of truth from the readings that might help support your belief.

 For example, say the belief is that you are awake right now. Is this something you would prove using empirical evidence? If so, discuss at least one version of empiricism and the correspondence theory of truth.

 If the belief is one that refers to a paradigm (math, for example), discuss Cartesian rationalism and the coherence theory of truth. If it is one that does not admit of empirical or logical warrantability, discuss Deconstruction and/or the Pragmatic and Ewe Creativity approaches to truth.

 

830 words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most debatable belief of truth is religion. The concept of an occult domain, a world of gods, spirits, devils, and enigmatic entities are common among religions. This aspect is impenetrable to sensory observation that serves as empiricists' sole source of information. There is a distinction to be made between empiricism as a philosophy and empiricism as a viewpoint. If I think that God is true, it is almost inevitable that empiricism would oppose to my belief. However, assumptions to unobservable things are allowed under a liberal sort of doctrinal empiricism, that may also belong within the boundaries of empiricism as a viewpoint. This would be the case with inferences to God's existence, however they are unlikely to meet the scientific qualifications. Some types of "natural theology" will be rejected by those who deny conclusions to unobservable things. Religious claims will need to be assessed in an empirical manner in light of two additional facts: first, that they create webs of belief, and second, because they are frequently assumed to be founded on a different source of knowledge (Dawes, 2019).

At one essential point, the Theistic worldview puts itself subject to empirical testing. This is due to the fact that a claim about human nature is a necessary component of it.  The argument is that every human being has spiritual faculties, which are inherent in most individuals but partially established in others; and when these capacities are formed, or liberated from the restriction that keep them unexpressed, experiences will emerge that will support the basic Theistic hypotheses, such as the being and attributes of God. This claim about human nature and its hidden spiritual potential may be scientifically verified. Furthermore, Theists offer a method for putting it to the test. The process is difficult to carry out; nonetheless, it is not impractical in concept. Anyone is welcome to test it and see for themselves whether it has the effects that it claims to have. One method to express the empiricist principle is to say, "Try it and see for yourself" (Gilford, 2016).

The sole foundation of ideas is our sense experience. They deny the Superiority of Reason thesis in its appropriate form. Since reason does not provide us with any information, it cannot provide us with greater knowledge. Though they do not have to, empiricists often reject the Indispensability of Reason claim. The premise of empiricism does not suggest that we have empirical evidences. It implies that knowledge can only be learned by experience (Markie, 2017). 

People accept things as real or untrue in everyday life based on authority or intuition. Many individuals, for example, rely on the advice and direction of their religious leaders when making decisions on how to conduct their life. Furthermore, we frequently accept things because they appear to be self-evident. In some elements of our life, such as those concerning morals, relying on authority and intuition may be quite beneficial. One of the cornerstones of every scientific activity is empiricism. Other fields use a different approach to knowledge acquisition. Many philosophers prefer the a priori technique over the empirical method. To generate information using the a priori technique, one must apply rigorously rational, logical reasons.

Empiricists defend their theory by identifying scenarios in which a person's lack of experience prevents them from fully comprehending something. John Locke uses the example to demonstrate the premise of empiricism. He claims that if you're not convinced, try to describe the flavour of pineapple to someone who has never had it. He might get a sense of it by getting informed of its similarity to other flavours for which he already has views in his recollection, engraved there by things he's eaten; but that's not providing him that concept by definition, but rather raising up other simple points in his mind that will still be very distinct from the actual taste of pineapple.

Empiricism has a variety of shortcomings and there are a lot of arguments against the assumption that experience can help us grasp the complete range of human existence. One of these objections is to the abstraction process, which is intended to produce concepts from sensations. The process of abstraction, empiricists will generally respond, entails a loss of information: sensations are vivid, whereas concepts are feeble recollections of thoughts. The concept of the self is an abstract concept that is difficult to express empirically. What kind of impact could possibly teach us such a concept? Indeed, for Descartes, the self is an intrinsic notion, one that exists within a person regardless of any specific experience: rather, the very potential of having an impression is contingent on a subject's having a concept of the self (Borghini, 2019).

In relation from the aforementioned arguments, the correspondence theory's core premise is that what we believe or say is true if it matches to how things are in reality - to the facts. The correspondence theory is unique in that it asserts that the concepts of connection and fact may be properly defined to transform the platitude into a compelling truth theory. We can't glance over our shoulders to compare our beliefs to a reality perceived through other ways, or maybe additional beliefs. As a result, we have no fixed idea of ‘facts' as structures to which our ideas may or may not conform.