Epistemology is a powerful tool. With proper adherence to epistemological principles conceptual systems can be created that effectively superimpose upon reality.
Math is an ideal example of this. It exists as an intangible form of properly produced knowledge. As such we can superimpose it upon reality in a precise manner.
However many linguistic bodies of knowledge are conceptual systems that do not superimpose well upon reality. Religions, political belief systems, as well as racial and disability belief systems have obvious shortcomings when we superimpose them upon reality. That is there are always aspects of reality that these belief systems cannot account for. As these belief systems are not properly produced knowledge they fall short of the necessary rigor to be cleanly superimposed upon reality, like we see with math or legitimate science.
Essentially linguistic bodies of knowledge mean something because they have throngs of believers, not because they effectively superimpose upon reality.
Using math as an inspiration, we see that proper adherence to epistemology produces formulas that make complex math operations easier to execute. When epistemology is followed, we see the results that we were looking for. This helps us further investigate reality.
AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL TOOL TO HELP EVALUATE KNOWLEDGE
We live in the world where ideas abound and oftentimes conflict. Everybody has an opinion about everything and is willing to share it. They can even use clever linguistic tricks to juxtapose certain words next to other words to make it sound like they know what they're talking about. Indeed charlatans are everywhere. What is worse is most of them honestly believe that they are right. In response to this utter conceptual chaos that is the state of modern human civilization, I offer an epistemological tool to help us evaluate knowledge.
All knowledge exists on an arc. That is the concept of an arc is the epistemological tool to help us evaluate the quality of knowledge.
These images show us the simple shape of the Arc of Knowledge and how to interpret it so that we can apply it in our lives.
The first image shows us the front view of the arc. As you can see the dot at the top represents the knowledge that we are evaluating. This can be a tangible object such as a cell phone, or it can be an intangible concept such as the knowledge of g*d.
In order to facilitate an understanding of this powerful Epistemological tool I am going to begin with what I call, "natural knowledge."
Natural knowledge refers to the objects of the universe. This could be a rock, air, a plant, dirt, or any other object that naturally exists in reality. This natural knowledge forms the foundation of the Arc of knowledge.
Let us Begin by taking a element such as gold and placing it on the arc of knowledge. A gold nugget would represent the dot of knowledge at the top. If we look to the left side of the arc we can see that knowledge is always formed from constituent components. In the case of the gold nugget, the constituent components toward the top of the arc would be a highly aligned atomic structure consisting of the gold element. That is these are the immediate constituent components that give rise to the gold nugget.
We can continue to break down the constituent components into subatomic particles. Indeed if we had an even deeper understanding of the quantum universe then we could effectively break down the gold nuggets even further, perhaps into vibrational States.
In other words natural knowledge can be broken down into the ground of reality itself. Our current civilization does not have the technological advancement to be able to understand the most subtle constituent components of a gold nugget. However the existence of the gold nugget proves that such components exist, whatever they might be.
We recognize that natural knowledge can be broken down into constituent components, ad infinitum. Whether or not we have the technological advancement to understand the fullest extent of the constituent components is another story.
However we recognize that as we begin to understand more subtle aspects of tangible reality, we can manipulate the tangible reality more effectively.
What is the use of a golden nugget and why does it have value? Why is a gold nugget more valuable than the rock next to it? Much of this has to do with the constituent components that make up the gold nugget and how gold as an element can be manipulated.
For example we understand that gold is a relatively malleable element. Thus we can do things with that knowledge of gold. If we need a malleable metal for a specific project, gold is an option.
For various reasons related to the constituent components, not all metals are as malleable as gold. Thus an understanding of the constituent components of knowledge leads to our ability to build upon the knowledge.
This potential to build upon knowledge is found on the right side of the arc. Indeed the further down the left side of the arc we understand, the more effectively we can manipulate the knowledge on the right side of the arc. Thus understanding the constituent components of gold allows us to do many things with gold that we would not be able to do if we just saw it as a shiny Rock.
The left and right side of the Arc of knowledge should be understood to remain in balance. That is our capacity to understand and harness the potential of the constituent components of the knowledge allows us to build upon that knowledge to a greater extent.
It is best to understand that the left side of the arc as a regression of the knowledge into constituent components and the right side of the arc as a progression of the knowledge into its potentials for growth.
A key to understanding The Arc of knowledge is to recognize that all knowledge in the entire universe exists on its own arc. That is the gold nugget exists on an arc of knowledge just like the rocks around it, the water near it, the air above it, and everything else that we consider reality.
Furthermore these arcs of knowledge overlap. Indeed as we regress knowledge along the left side of the arc we recognize that constituent components are indeed distinct forms of knowledge themselves. Gold atoms do not have to coalesce into a nugget of gold. Indeed we could not do anything useful with random gold atoms interspersed throughout other rocks.
However when enough of these gold atoms are aligned in an atomic structure they can produce a nugget of gold. We can take this nugget of gold melt it down and reform it into a malleable piece of metal.
Next in order to understand how to properly build upon knowledge we can progress the knowledge along the right side of the arc. In other words our understanding of the nature of gold itself allows us to brainstorm ideas in which to use gold. So long as the ideas Accord with the constituent components of gold, and the knowledge of gold itself, then we can progress knowledge along the right side of the arc.
Put simply properly produced knowledge has to connect along the arc. We have to be able to regress and progress knowledge in order to be able to consider it knowledge and not just a random idea.
Indeed random ideas cannot be broken down into constituent components nor built upon in a meaningful manner. This is why they are not considered properly produced knowledge.
The second image shows the Arc of knowledge from the side and flattened so that it's Unique shape can be understood. As you see there are two triangles sitting on the knowledge represented by the dot in the middle.
The closer the arc is to the knowledge represented by the dot, the more precise it is going to be. That is, the more gold is going to look like gold. When we look at a golden nugget we see gold. When we look at it under a microscope we see a highly aligned metallic structure of the gold element. However as we get deeper into more subtle aspects of reality we might arrive at constituent components that do not look at all like gold because they are found in all types of atoms. Indeed protons neutrons and electrons as the most salient subatomic particles are found in all atoms. Thus we find that the constituent components of gold overlap with the constituent components of literally everything else in reality. There are protons neutrons and electrons in the rocks around the gold, in the water, in the air, and in the plants. However they are organized in a distinct manner so that as they coalesce into knowledge they take different forms.
Indeed the gold element is merely a specific organization of subatomic particles.
A similar pattern holds true on the right side of the arc in which we would progress the knowledge of gold. Indeed we can make specific items constructed entirely of gold, such as a ring.
However gold itself May merely be a constituent component of a more complex structure. For example if we wanted to use gold to construct a hardware component for a cell phone, there would be many more constituent components to the cell phone than gold itself. However, we would be able to understand how gold, and our understanding of its constituent components, gave rise to our ability to mold it into a hardware component for a technology.
This is why triangles are used to represent the dispersal of knowledge. The further away we are along The Arc from the knowledge in the middle the less the knowledge will appear like the knowledge in the middle.
These states of increased dispersal should be understood as overlap with other forms of knowledge. Recall that literally everything in the universe naturally exists on its own arc of knowledge. There is always overlap to knowledge.
The further we are away from gold in our example along the arc the less that we can see the knowledge of gold. If we go too far along the left hand side we see subatomic particles that are building blocks to everything else in the universe. If we go too far along the right hand side of the arc, we arrive at uses that require minimal amounts of gold. A gold ring would occur near the top of the Arc on the right side whereas a hardware component for an advanced technology would have substantial overlap and occur toward the bottom of the right side of the arc.
It is important to understand that as we travel on either side of the Arc we arrive at knowledge that can be placed at the top of its own arc as the knowledge we are evaluating. In other words we could go along the left side of the ark and evaluate gold atoms, or protons neutrons and electrons. Each constituent component is also properly produced natural knowledge itself and that is why it exists on the Arc of knowledge.
We can also travel along the right side of the Arc and see how our knowledge was built upon. Once again a gold ring or a hardware component for an advanced technology requires the natural knowledge of gold. Thus as we travel along the right side of the Arc we see that the knowledge of a gold ring requires the knowledge of gold as a constituent component.
AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE ARC OF KNOWLEDGE
Different audience members learn in different ways. Some are more visual whereas others benefit from different examples.
Let's imagine that the knowledge represented by the dot at the top of the arc is a word. It's constituent components are the letters that make up the word. The potential for growth would be how we can use the word in accordance with proper grammar in our language.
Just like we wouldn't say "have a gold day" because it departs from the rules of our language, so too would we not attempt to use gold in an application that is inapposite to its nature. Gold does not make a good window.
Furthermore to build upon this language example the letters that make up the word "gold" can also be applied to make other words that have nothing to do with gold.
THE ARC OF KNOWLEDGE AND LINGUISTIC BODIES OF KNOWLEDGE
The foundational patterns for the Arc of knowledge are found in the natural knowledge of reality. This natural knowledge exists as perfectly produced knowledge whether or not we believe in it. We can use the model of the Arc of knowledge to inform our linguistic bodies of knowledge.
Let us know examine the g*d axiom using the Arc of knowledge. It may seem tempting to assert that there is broad agreement on certain linguistic bodies of knowledge. For example we can assert that there's broad agreement on the concepts of good and evil. We can also assert that there's broad agreement on nearly anything that is a salient issue in our society. There's broad agreement that our political system works. There's broad agreement that g*d exists, etc.
I say that it's tempting because it seems like a relatively easy way to form connections with other humans. Who is going to argue that there's good and evil in the world?
I will because it's not properly produced knowledge.
Let us Begin by taking the concept of Good and evil and placing it on the Arc of knowledge. If we look to the left side of the arc of knowledge we ask ourself what are the constituent components of the linguistic knowledge of Good and evil?
Obviously language itself is involved. But also there would be some sort of entity to demarcate these things. Either the individual is demarcating or a higher authority such as g*d is demarcating.
On the right hand side of the Arc of knowledge is where we see 10,000 years of human embarrassment. Perhaps there is broad agreement that the concepts of good and evil exist. Indeed we all can find things that we agree with and like to label as "good" and things that we are averse to and like to label as "evil."
The problem with the concepts of Good and evil is that as soon as we attempt to specify what is good and what is evil then we run into conflict. My version of Good and evil is slightly distinct from your version, which is slightly distinct from the next person's, etc.
How do we make sense of all these differing versions of Good and evil? Put simply we don't. At best we try to form ad hoc groups with like-minded individuals and overpower other groups with whom we disagree.
This is the nature of the 10,000 years of human embarrassment. I am reluctant to reference religious texts as I do not consider them properly produce knowledge however the reference is appropriate.
"Haven't y'all already been told by your very own religious text that an attempt to produce the knowledge of Good and evil is itself a massive problem?"
Perhaps The Arc of knowledge can inform why there was legitimate wisdom in this biblical story.
I don't think it's proper to interpret that humans are evil for attempting to produce the knowledge of good and evil. Rather I think it's an exercise in extreme foolishness to attempt to do so because it will inevitably lead to significant conflict with other humans.
Where is the wisdom, humanity?
Sure there's broad agreement on the notions of good and evil. However the moment we try to specify it, we end up with human conflict up to and including religious wars. How many humans have to suffer because individuals and groups find it convenient to behave as the final arbiter of reality ("I'm right because I'm the one thinking it")?
Next, let's put the g*d axiom itself on the Arc of knowledge. The obvious giveaway that this is not properly produced knowledge is that there's pretty much an individualized conception of g*d for every human on the planet that wants to believe in it.
However let's investigate what this looks like when we break down the knowledge of g*d into constituent components.
Whatever an individual or group believes about the constituent components of God is merely their own personal beliefs. The reality is as an animal subject to Time you do not have access to that which is outside of Time. Furthermore It is incomprehensible why you would think that it makes more sense to attempt to produce the knowledge of that which is outside of Time prior to producing the knowledge of Time itself. As I've stated in a previous essay there may be elements to Time itself that either make the knowledge of g*d irrelevant or serve as prerequisite knowledge for the knowledge of g*d. No matter which way you look at it attempting to produce the knowledge of g*d before producing the knowledge of Time is an exercise in futility and foolishness.
I suppose it can boost one's sense of self by having a BFF to talk to whenever you want.
Hmmm.... This sounds like another ugly manifestation of the confirmation bias culture. Indeed before modern algorithms existed to tell you exactly what you already presumed to be true about reality, there was g*d, your personal bff!
Indeed if "g*d said it" then it must be true, right?
Perhaps the g*d axiom is better conceptualized as a "primitive confirmation bias" that fed the human species what it already presumed to be true about reality for thousands of years.
Perhaps the seeds of our modern confirmation bias culture were born thousands of years ago with the g*d axiom.
Thus far, we have seen that certain types of knowledge, especially linguistic forms of knowledge, do not extend far on the left or right side of the Arc of knowledge. That is as soon as we investigate their constituent components we find inadequacies , and then as soon as we try to build upon it we run into conflict or other problems. We cannot regress or progress the knowledge and consistently find other properly produced knowledge.
I ask, "what is the evolutionary utility of maintaining improperly produced knowledge?" If we could not effectively break down nor build upon the knowledge of g*d, or the knowledge of good and evil, then what is the point of maintaining them?
I suppose that if you consider yourself the final arbiter of reality it might be meaningful to maintain concepts upon which you've built your entire identity throughout the course of your life. I don't imagine that religious priests are going to appreciate having knowledge that they've built their lives around examined on the Arc of knowledge.
Perhaps this is where we can find individuals who prefer to be right instead of Happy.
THE ARC OF KNOWLEDGE AND MISLEADING SCIENCE
Let us know shift gears toward linguistic bodies of knowledge that have some sort of relationship to science. Indeed it is important to note in our confirmation bias culture that merely a relationship to science itself does not mean that the knowledge has been properly produced.
The ideal example is the mental hell-th system. What are the distinctions between purely linguistic bodies of knowledge such as the knowledge of g*d, and pseudoscientific bodies of knowledge such as that of mental hell-th?
The Arc of knowledge can help us answer this question.
Let's now hop in our imaginary time machine and go back to the 1950s. At that point in our scientific understanding of the human nervous system it made sense to formulate a hypothesis that human behavior that deviated from the expectations of the dominant class was the result of a biological pathology. Specifically this pathology was hypothesized to exist in the human nervous system.
In other words in order to formulate the hypothesis that said behavior is the result of a biological pathology, researchers needed to have enough prerequisite knowledge to make an educated guess that thinking and behavior directly relates to the activity of the human nervous system.
Thus if we look along the left side of the arc we are going to find the prerequisite knowledge, which can also be understood as the constituent components.
Perhaps constituent components is more appropriate to describe the natural knowledge such as a gold nugget and prerequisite knowledge is more appropriate to describe human generated knowledge such as scientific knowledge. However the two terms can be used interchangeably
The prerequisite knowledge for the hypothesis that human behavior that deviates from the expectations of the dominant classes is the result of a biological pathology may include the following:
The scientific method
Research equipment
An understanding of human biology
A laboratory in which to conduct experiments
These things, among others serve as the prerequisite knowledge for the properly produced hypothesis.
Indeed researchers studied the human nervous system in search of biological pathologies for decades and have found none that directly relate to a so-called mental illness.
However researchers also found out that their hypothesis was just plain false. Indeed an inverse theorem was created after extensive experimentation. Here an "inverse theorem" is used to describe repeated falsification of the hypothesis upon which researchers were investigating.
That is researchers discovered through repeated failed experiments that behavior that exists outside the expectations of the dominant class is not the result of a biological pathology.
As the hypothesis was proven false, it's constituent components pretty much stop at that which is necessary to conduct an experiment. In other words the knowledge can only be tested, but never actually put into practice because it's false.
We cannot develop scans or test for biological pathologies giving rise to so-called mental illnesses because they don't exist. The treatments that we provide do not correct any biological pathology but rather reduce global brain function.
Put simply all of the pseudo-knowledge that we've built upon the false hypothesis is not related to the hypothesis. Indeed that hypothesis was proven to be false decades ago.
Rather the pseudo knowledge that we have come to understand as the modern mental hell-th system is the result of numerous other influences.
These influences include:
The Public's blind trust in science
Financial incentives to secure grant money
Financial incentives to produce marketable drugs
The reality that modern Western Civilization does not attempt to find a place for each member of society, unlike many indigenous cultures.
When we take this false hypothesis and combine it with these other factors we get the modern mental hell-th system.
The false hypothesis that deviations in behavior are due to a biological pathology cannot effectively leave the laboratory. This is why we can never develop scans or tests for a biological pathology. This is why we can never develop drugs to treat a biological pathology. The utility of said hypothesis is purely for experimentation.
The moment that we take this false hypothesis out of the laboratory, we need other forms of social power to prop it up and make it appear legitimate.
One merely needs to keep up with the internal professional dialogue found primarily in academic papers in order to understand the state of the profession of mental hell-th.
The field is in the midst of a paradigm shift as numerous professionals are pointing the finger at their counterparts claiming bad science.
Indeed I'm asserting bad science as well, albeit from a primarily epistemological perspective.
I offer The Arc of knowledge as my contribution to modern civilization. It is properly produced knowledge in accordance with the principles of epistemology. When superimposed upon reality it can assist us in understanding the depth and potential of any knowledge we are investigating.
The Arc of knowledge can be understood as an evolutionary growth tool. Perhaps one day in the not too distant future The Arc of knowledge can be used to reduce human conflict among other community building efforts.
It is often said that knowledge is power. The Arc of knowledge can serve as a powerful tool to harmonize human activities.
Thank you and have a Content day
Sean