What is your epistemology?

[tackattack]

---

Yep that's the one Tack

The main problem with Contructivism as far as i can tell is that it lacks a mechanism for removing false belief and simply assimilates new knowledge into the picture in a very accomodationalist way.

Motivational internalism (i assume that's what you were talking about) is a meta-ethical theory and not an epistemology, i think.

I don't believe you can completely eliminate false beliefs. Through constant input, selectivity of attention and priority processing we just focus more on the things we do believe instead of those we don't.

Yes, but the fact that we believe something does not mean that it is true or that we know it to be true.

I mean have you ever been somewhere.. utterly despise it and go back years later.. and feel a strange sense of comfort or familiarity? It's sort of like that.

I know the feeling, like the secluded holiday home that used to bore me to death when i was younger, but i don't see how this has anything to do with knowledge.

What I meant with including the internalist slant on constructivism is more of a Descarte's perspective.

Could you go a little more in-depth?

It's a very cautious approach to trusting the inputs we receive and ingesting them, while wholly recognizing the necessity for the subjectivity of the senses.

So you believe roughly that If we believe P and P is true, we have an introspective ability to justify our beliefs? How so?

While I gamble I probably have a more relaxed view of the division of conscious and subconscious than you I think we can agree that the more something passes through the thalamus the more it has an affect on our views of reality.

I don't see how any of this related to our ability to know, it could play a part in the strengthening of our beliefs for sure, but i wouldn't consider the strength of my beliefs to be a justification for believing them, regardless of whether or not they happen to be true.

---

I'd love to keep up with your conversation with Adrian, but I think I'll respond first then comment on the conversation up to the point. Hopefully more succinctly this time:

1- I believe it's impractical to gain knowledge prior to anything, everything is experienced and logic and reasoned are developed, therefore everything believed is only as true as the experience and ideology is true. Therefore I only believe in subjective knowledge and subjective truth.
2- To distinguish from self reality (what is real to me) to objectifiable reality (what is real to everyone) I use reliable testing, accommodating and assimilating incorrect assumptions, seeking and evaluating outside sources both in-line and contrary to your position, and introspection.
3- I don't "know" anything objectively because "I" can not be objective, and "I" is the key in my personal philosophy. I believe things are indicative, mutually agreed upon, and objectifiable only with increasing perspective. This perspective of ever increasing assimilation is one of my foundations, especially with constructivism beliefs and inquiry-based learning I grew up on.

I'm sure I'm missing some specific responses to any questions you have and I'd love to see how this turned into orangutan and chocolate discussion, but I'll see if I have time today to catch up.