Chisholm sees "What do we know?" as one of the basic questions of epistemology. Another way to put this question is:
Chisholm sees "What do we know?" as one of the basic questions of epistemology. Another way to put this question is:
For example, do we have knowledge of external objects -- of mathematics -- of other minds -- of God -- of moral truths?
The "commonsense approach" starts by assuming that we have genuine knowledge in given areas. Then it tries to construct a theory to explain how such knowledge is possible.
Chisholm sees "What do we know?" as one of the basic questions of epistemology. Another way to put this question is:
This question look for a way to distinguish real knowledge from apparent knowledge.
The "empiricist approach" starts by assuming that real knowledge is somehow grounded in experience. On this basis, it tries to decide whether we have genuine knowledge of external objects -- or mathematics -- or other minds -- or God -- or moral truths.
Chisholm sees "What do we know?" as one of the basic questions of epistemology. Another way to put this question is:
This question look for a way to distinguish real knowledge from apparent knowledge.
The "empiricist approach" starts by assuming that real knowledge is somehow grounded in experience. On this basis, it tries to decide whether we have genuine knowledge of external objects -- or mathematics -- or other minds -- or God -- or moral truths.