How do we know that we know?

Updated: Jul 10, 2023

*Disclaimer: Prior to anyone criticizing my knowledge, I want to clarify that I do not assert expertise in this topic. I am fully aware that individuals pursue degrees and extensive studies in this field, whereas my understanding is based on casual reading of articles and watching videos, which took place quite some time ago.

Before embarking on the journey of learning and expanding my knowledge on various subjects, it is crucial to pause and reflect on a fundamental question: What exactly is knowledge? How do we acquire factual information upon which we can form our opinions? How can we determine if something is indeed a fact and not merely a subjective belief? Furthermore, how can we develop unbiased opinions in pursuit of objective truth and discern between genuine knowledge and information that is tailored to us, particularly in the digital age where our interactions heavily rely on AI-powered algorithms?

I was first introduced to the term "epistemology" by a guy named Mohamed al Shames (well he’s not just a guy, he was recognized as the world's most exceptional speaker in the previous year's Arabic world debates). Anyhow, Epistemology is the study of the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge and epistemic justification. The term comes from the Greek words “episteme” and “logos” which mean “knowledge” and “reason”, respectively. All questions, disputes, and ambiguities in the field can be characterized into two main categories:

1- Determining the nature of knowledge: what is it, and how do we differentiate between a person who knows something and one who doesn’t?

2- Determining the extent of our knowledge: how do we acquire knowledge, and what are the limits to what we can know?

There are different things that you can know, and in English, unlike some other languages, there’s one verb that can be applied to all of these things, which is “know”. You can know an object or a person, you can know a skill, and most importantly you can know a fact. Knowledge has three main components: belief, truth, and justification. While some believe that a true belief is knowledge, others, such as Socrates and Duncan Pritchard, believe that a true belief can be a result of epistemic luck and doesn’t have true backing facts. Therefore, we need rational justification for the things we believe in. From which where the term Justified True Belief (JTB) was thought to be knowledge. Until 1963, with Edmond Gettier’s famous paper on the Gettier case (is JTB knowledge?), one of the stories that clearly demonstrate this is one originally prompted by Bertrand Russell in 1948 called the stopped watch.

It goes as follows: Alice sees a clock that reads two o'clock and believes that the time is two o'clock. It is, in fact, two o'clock. There's a problem, however: unknown to Alice, the clock she's looking at stopped twelve hours ago.

Alice thus has an accidentally true, justified belief.

Another aspect of epistemology that is very interesting and, Bueno, frightening is epistemological skepticism. It is the view that we don’t know anything or at least that we do not know as much as we think we do. “I think and therefore I am”, is Descartes’s famous saying. He was considered one of the radical skeptics, with cartesian skepticism, where he thought that he might be fooled by a demon “a supreme or supernatural deceiver” into believing he is nothing or he doesn’t even exist or have senses and a body. He also mentions in his Meditations on First Philosophy that if he’s aware of it then he is something, and I would like to dwell on that a bit. In my humble limited opinion, if we don’t exist then how do we have the autonomy to do what we want but then if this deceiver is tricking us into believing that we have autonomy then he would have been smart enough to make us incapable of questioning whether we or he existed.

Other skeptics are Pyrrho which the branch, pyrrhonism, was named after; it states that we don’t know anything including that we don’t know anything. Then we have academic skepticism, associated with Carneades, which states that we don’t know anything except that we know nothing.

My favorite one is mitigated skepticism, which states that we will never know anything 100% for certain but we can have partial knowledge while remaining openminded and skeptical. We learn and discover new aspects of science, and we know that a scientific notion is a notion that doesn’t accept a counter-argument, and if there exists one, then the scientific theory fails to be true.

One example that interests me about that and which is still a major part of quantum theory is Bohr’s model of an atom

Bohr suggested that instead of buzzing randomly around the nucleus, electrons inhabit orbits situated at a fixed distance away from the nucleus. Each orbit is associated with a particular energy, and the electron can change orbit by emitting or absorbing energy in discrete chunks (called quanta). In this way, Bohr was able to explain the spectrum of light emitted (or absorbed) by hydrogen, the simplest of all atoms.

Bohr published these ideas in 1913 and over the next decade developed the theory with others to try to explain more complex atoms. In 1922 he was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work.

However, the model was misleading in several ways and ultimately destined for failure. The maturing field of quantum mechanics revealed that it was impossible to know an electron’s position and velocity simultaneously. Bohr’s well-defined orbits were replaced with probability “clouds” where an electron is likely to be.

At his time he believed his theory to be completely correct and won a Nobel prize for it, but then it was discovered to be flawed and proved to be only partially true. And therefore, we can explore, discover, invent, and learn while always keeping an open mind to update and renew or unlearn and relearn. Descartes says, “Even if my knowledge is always growing more and more, nonetheless, that doesn’t convince me that it will ever be truly infinite since it can never reach a stage where it is not capable of increasing any further”. That both is very soothing and scary for me; knowing that our lives are not long enough to capacitate all the things that we want to learn about, yet we won’t be alive to witness the day when we cannot learn anymore.

Internet Epistemology

Moving on to the most critical part of our contemporary world, which is Internet or Digital epistemology.

The Internet, along with its extensive array of resources and services, is causing a profound shift in how we search for information and shape our beliefs. It has not only altered the methods through which we acquire knowledge but even the very meaning to know something. As a resource from which we attain information and facts, the internet has raised more challenges and questions, such as :How do we evaluate claims and testimony from others whose true identities are unknown to us? How do we assess information that has been altered according to criteria or methods that are opaque or secret? How do we detect information that has been bent by prejudice or manipulated by special interests? And many more.

Looking at it from the perspective of seeking information, there is no doubt that the Internet provides convenient and rapid access to a vast array of information, including relevant resources that can improve organizational performance or develop a new skill. However, when it comes to acquiring knowledge about the things that are critical and which you base your opinions on, the use of the Internet can exacerbate the various challenges addressed and give rise to amplified consequences. In evaluating knowledge, it is necessary to take into account factors like the accuracy, dependability, and impartiality of the information retrieved through the search engine. Thomas W. Simpson proposes in his epistemic evaluation of Google three assessment criteria: timeliness, authority prioritization, and objectivity. Timeliness is not the amount of time that it takes the search engine to return its results but the amount of time an enquirer is likely to take to find a relevant link. Simpson’s second criterion of authority prioritization refers to a search engine’s performance in prioritizing reliable results rather than just relevant ones. Objectivity refers to the degree to which a search engine presents information without bias or undue influence. It involves the search engine's ability to provide impartial and neutral results, ensuring that the information displayed is not skewed toward specific perspectives, interests, or agendas. Objectivity emphasizes the importance of presenting a balanced range of viewpoints and avoiding undue promotion or suppression of certain sources or ideologies.

In my opinion, those three assessments of digital information are highly compromised by three main threats. First is the SEO. SEO is an acronym that stands for "search engine optimization." In basic terms, SEO refers to the practice of enhancing your website to boost its prominence on search engines like Google, Microsoft Bing, and others. So whoever can pay more will get their website, document, and paper prioritized. If individuals choose to solely read and trust the top results displayed on search engine result pages, they would develop a significantly flawed comprehension of the actual events. Although they may possess accurate beliefs regarding the actions undertaken by one party, they would lack accurate beliefs about the actions taken by the other party. Secondly, search engines have a tendency to customize search results based on users' previous browsing activities and the type of information they consume, content to make them more appealing or clickable. This filtering process aligns with the broader trend of increased personalization on the Internet. By tailoring search results, search engine personalization can strengthen confirmation bias, which is the inclination of individuals to favor information that aligns with their existing beliefs or opinions. Among internet companies, the ones that achieve the greatest success are those capable of implementing highly effective filtering mechanisms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that platforms, programs, and search engines that are governed by specific countries or individuals with their own viewpoints, beliefs, or vested interests will never offer completely unbiased content.

Recommendations from various scholars include:

1. Disable personalization features or opt for search engines that do not customize results or track your search history, such as Qwant.

2. Be aware that content filtering is prevalent, so it is advisable to verify or supplement internet-filtered information with content from traditional media sources such as newspapers, television shows, and reputable news websites.

3. Recognize that individuals who hold opposing views are exposed to entirely different information, so strive to be open-minded and actively listen and understand their perspectives, rather than solely projecting your own.