The Concept of Intellectual Humility

 

    The concept of intellectual humility does not mean that one actually needs to feel humiliated. It means being rational enough to desire learning the truth more than always being correct. Intellectual humility is a characteristic that defies foolishness. Being overconfident in one's expertise can lead to the mistake of overlooking the things that have not been considered. The claim of certainty can only be true for knowledge that is obtained by direct observation or is the only possibility. Our desire to learn the truth is more important and beneficial than any illogical stubbornness one may have. Intellectual humility may arise when we make mistakes, are misinformed, or are uninformed. We can learn the new information that has caused us intellectual humility and we can revise our knowledge thereafter. This is the wiser approach for the acquisition of knowledge as we obtain a clearer understanding of the truth as a result.

    When it comes to the acquisition of knowledge, there are many techniques that one can employ to evaluate the truth. We can find some detailed procedures on the evaluation of knowledge for it's truth in the study of epistemology. One of the most important and applicable teachings of philosophy is the teaching by Socrates to ask questions to assess the truth. Being wrong at times is acceptable, and we do not want foolishness to hinder us from making progress towards realizing the truth.

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

The Importance of Epistemology

    The importance of the subject of epistemology, the study of knowledge, is often overlooked. It is also agreed upon that the subject of epistemology is incomplete in it's current state. The improvements that could be made to all of our subjects and our everyday lives goes unseen as a result. The universally accepted outlined procedure of the inquiry of knowledge is the one that covers everything that we can do to inspect the truth to it's greatest detail. A universally accepted classification of the types of knowledge exists, depending on what lens one needs for their purpose. When knowledge is viewed with the distinction between absolute facts and beliefs, clarity is attained, and this is a universally accepted categorization of the types of knowledge. Within these categories we can place the additional sub-categories of knowledge where they fit. For example, knowledge that is based on direct observation is placed in the category of absolute facts and knowledge that is obtained through testimony is placed in the category of beliefs. The only knowledge that constitutes absolute facts is made either through direct observation or is the only possibility. With this clear understanding that pertains to knowledge in general, students of all subjects as well as newspaper readers can better understand the information that they are educated with, the scientists of today will make less mistakes, and clarity will be widespread. Due to all of the plausible improvements that could take place as a result, the study of epistemology requires completion.

    I have taken some time to do additional research on the knowledge that we currently have in epistemology. According to ChatGPT, there are several classifications of the types of knowledge all of which are not universally accepted. There is the classifications of knowledge by type which is the most commonly used one. The classifications of knowledge by type include propositional knowledge, which is knowing a fact or a proposition, procedural knowledge, which is knowing how to perform a task, and acquaintance knowledge, which is knowledge gained through direct familiarity such as knowing your best friend. I suppose that this is another way to view the types of knowledge but I am unsure of the purpose of viewing knowledge in this way at this time. Maybe in the future I will become well-versed in all the knowledge that we currently possess in epistemology.

    There is also the classification of knowledge by source which I think is the brightest classification that is currently included in the curriculum of epistemology. Here the types of knowledge are classified by their source. There is perception, which is knowledge obtained through the senses, memory, which is knowledge retained from previous experiences, testimony, which is knowledge acquired from other people, reason, which is knowledge obtained through logical thinking, and introspection, which is knowledge about one's own mental states. I think that this classification of the types of knowledge can be useful for discerning the reliability of the information once we identify it's source. This classification of knowledge does have a universally accepted version. We can figure it out. Do humans have any other sources for their knowledge? Do any of the sources in this classification overlap under a greater umbrella source? Do the categories of knowledge obtained through reason and knowledge obtained through introspection actually belong under a greater term of knowledge obtained from personal thoughts?

    ChatGPT also presents me with different theories that explain what makes knowledge justified. Before I state the names of these theories alongside their short descriptions that I have been provided with, I would like to make several remarks. These theories seem to be concerned with beliefs and justifying those beliefs. These theories have different goals than my own theory in epistemology which is titled “The Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge” which differentiates between indisputable knowledge and questionable knowledge. The goal of my theory is to understand the substance of the knowledge at hand and to be able to see what it is thereby assisting us in our decisions of what knowledge we choose to accept. The different theories that explain what makes knowledge justified include foundationalism, which believes that knowledge rests upon properly basic beliefs, coherentism, which believes that beliefs are justified because they fit coherently into an interconnected system of beliefs, infinitism, which believes that justification consists of an infinite chain of supporting reasons, reliabilism, which believes that knowledge comes from cognitive processes that reliably produce true beliefs, and virtue epistemology, which believes that knowledge arises through the exercise of intellectual virtues such as honesty, careful reasoning, and open-mindedness. What do you think about these theories? What do they sound like to you? Do you think that these theories have properly understood meanings and objectives? I would have to read them one by one in order for me to learn all about them. However, the goals of these theories do seem to be in a different and less important direction than the goal of the theory that I have concluded.

    The vast volume of upgrades to our education and lives awaits us with the completion of the field of epistemology. I have defined what the universally accepted versions of some of the teachings of epistemology are in this essay. The completion of this subject will bring humanity one step up the stairway to higher intellect. Up this stairway of the intellectuality of mankind rests an achievable level of higher human intelligence known as the age of peace of mankind.

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

We Require Epistemology

 

    We require epistemology. The theories that exist in epistemology are incomplete with their reasoning and logic. As we can see from sources such as The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, epistemology is taught in terms of cognitive success. Teaching epistemology in terms of cognitive success creates confusion. What does cognitive success have to do with understanding what things are when it comes to the study of knowledge?

    The field of epistemology needs improvement. The teachings that are currently being presented seem to be closer to nonsense than clear understanding. In epistemology, there is the Gettier problem. The Gettier problem argues that a person can have justified true belief without having knowledge. What does this teach? That we can have a belief and that it is not knowledge? What is the purpose of this teaching? This teaching seems to lack a purpose and nothing becomes achievable as a result of this teaching. The objectives of epistemology must be adjusted and the theories of this field of study must be completed in order for our society to further advance in intellect. Every day life is an applicable area for this subject of study.

    In the 10th century, there was an Arab mathematician and philosopher named Ibn Al-Haytham. Ibn Al-Haytham proved that vision occurs when light is reflected from an object, disproving the current day's belief that eyes emit light rays. He also pioneered the use of controlled testing to verify hypotheses centuries before the European Renaissance. He encouraged skepticism as a duty. He believed that a seeker of truth must question all existing knowledge rather than blindly trusting tradition. He famously wrote that a scientist must become an enemy of everything they read, attacking it from every side to find the absolute truth. I understand this exact same thing and I have published my “Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge” on my website which is accompanied by my text “The Measurement of Existence in the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge.” My theory classifies the types of knowledge that exist and distinguishes between indisputable knowledge and questionable knowledge. The text that accompanies my theory provides methods that we can utilize in order to examine the truth of knowledge. My theory has a purpose and it can be applied to many fields of study as well as to everyday life.

    If people learn my theory, then they will become able to distinguish between what is indisputable knowledge and what is questionable knowledge thereby improving their clarity and enriching their understanding of all things that are knowledge. My theory has the purpose of teaching what we are to accept and what we are to not accept as knowledge.

 

It is agreed upon that the study of epistemology is incomplete in it's current state.

 

I'm really just trying to get us started. We must complete epistemology.

Share:

Read More

The Introduction of Buddhist Wisdom

 

 

When introduced to the teachings of Buddhist wisdom, one may mistake the identity of the information to be a belief system. This is why I begin my scroll of wisdom which is on my website with the quote from the Buddha “Do not listen to what anybody says, including me, if it does not agree with your own common sense.” Upon learning the teachings of Buddhist wisdom such as “If we just abandon hate, then we can enjoy being hate free.” one may wonder how they might accomplish becoming hate free with their mind or misunderstand the meaning of the application of this teaching. In order to apply this teaching, one must begin practicing the removal of hatred whenever they become aware that they are experiencing hatred. The removal of hatred itself can be performed by a conscious decision to not adopt it or by other methods such as practices of meditation to feel the emotion until it passes. After doing this enough times it becomes easy. It also becomes your instinct. Practicing the teachings of Buddhist wisdom is like learning how to drive. They become second nature. There are many mental health benefits as well as beneficial character development qualities that can be gained through the practice of Buddhist knowledge.

 

I would also like to point out that the reason that the Buddha is depicted as laughing can be understood through this quote of “If we just abandon hate, then we can enjoy being hate free.” Certain explanations of Buddhist teachings explain it in the words that people are foolish and that they need to realize it and that is all that they need to do in order to become “enlightened”, which is being aware of oneself and acquiring the knowledge and practice of the teachings of Buddhist wisdom. Hatred is an unhealthy emotion that, through practice, can be expelled. The laughter of the Buddha stems from the idiocy one may have if they are simply not aware of the fact that the mind can be altered and transformed to our liking.

Share:

Read More

A Model For Trusting People as Sources of Information

 

In order to evaluate a person as a source of information with full rationality we must always begin with the question of:

"Did this person give us a reason to think that they are being dishonest?"

If this person has not provided a reason to believe that they are being dishonest then you can continue listening to the person with open ears, otherwise, you can take note of their past dishonesty and continue listening. Dishonesty in the past does not directly lead to the conclusion that the next statement will be dishonest. Likewise, consistent honesty does not directly lead to the conclusion that the next statement will be an honest statement.
Some people may be tricked into believing others based on their appearance alone, but the evaluation of the truth takes time. In order to obtain the most rational perspective, the question that we must ask ourselves when we encounter a new person is "Who are you?"

We may not have the answer to this question or we can learn about this person. If we learn about this person, then we may have this person's record of providing valid information. We cannot, however, accept any information to be the truth until we have given the provided information careful consideration ourselves.

Things to consider when judging a person as a source of valid information: 

 1) How does your perception of the individual change the more that you learn about them?

2)  If the individual makes many consecutive statements that are true, will you believe the next thing that they say?

What do we believe in?
We only believe in things that can be understood with common sense as according to what can possibly exist or be done in the physical realm using our body and the resources that are available to us or by what we observe with our own eyesight.

You can always listen with open ears if you can entertain a thought without accepting it at first.

To evaluate the truth we can ask questions. If you practice this teaching by Socrates, you can obtain the truth.

To practice this, we can always ask the questions "What is this?" and "And what is that?"
When we hear people make statements we can ask them for the meaning of their statements in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the meaning. We must also listen to others with the perception of the knowledge of metaphors and the ability to say things for the effect that they will have on the other person.

We must always ask the question "why?" about everything. For example, if someone makes an action we can ask ourselves the question of "why?" in order to obtain a greater understanding. Asking the question of "why?" enhances our overall understanding.
We need to figure out the answer to "why?" by looking into the minds of others and by contemplating their perspective. We can do so by considering their lives, as in where they are coming from, combined with the knowledge that people can have different ideas about the same things, different interpretations, and can also say things that convey a different meaning.

We must always listen to the emotional sound of the voice of the speaker in order to interpret the feeling of the meaning that they convey.

For example, someone could be sarcastic by saying "I love you" and convey the opposite meaning.

If we put all of the above into practice, we can gain a better understanding of the world based on all of the information that we have been exposed to from news sources combined with information that we receive from other people as our sources.

Share:

Read More

DNA Mutations in Microbes Are Not Evidence of Evolution

 

Scientists believe that the ability of a microbe to acquire DNA mutations that are useful for surviving it's external environment is an example of natural selection. Scientists consider this to be the best example of evolution and "evolution that we can see in the lab."

The DNA mutations that allow microbes to adapt to their environment within their own separate entity of species is not evidence of evolution from one species of microbes to another.

The useful traits acquired through DNA mutations, such as the trait of antibiotic resistance, can also be lost and forgotten over time.

Can bacteria lose their antibiotic resistance?
"Yes, antibiotic resistance traits can be lost, but this reverse process occurs more slowly. If the selective pressure that is applied by the presence of an antibiotic is removed, the bacterial population can potentially revert to a population of bacteria that responds to antibiotics."

If what is being considered as evidence of natural selection and evolution does not show a change from one species of microbes to another, and it's acquired trait through what we consider to be natural selection can be lost and forgotten over time, then DNA mutations in microbes are not evidence of evolution.

© 2021 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

How Did Scientists Discover the Functions of the Anatomy of the Human Brain?

When inspecting scientific knowledge, one must consider the experiment that was used to obtain the knowledge. In the pool of scientific education we frequently encounter many teachings for which the experiment that was performed in order to obtain that knowledge is not mentioned or discussed. For example, we may learn the teaching of neurology of the functional areas of the human brain without considering the experiment that was used to obtain this knowledge.

What experiment could have been performed in order to obtain this information? This knowledge may have been obtained through unethical surgical practice on living specimens.

The National Library of Medicine states that the modern diagram of the functional areas of the human brain was published in the year 1909 by the German neuroanatomist Korbinian Brodmann. Various sources claim that this information was obtained through studying patients who suffered brain injuries and survived.

Our modern technological advancement of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) which is capable of leading the acquisition of this knowledge was introduced at a much later date in the year 1991.

This diagram that details the functional areas of the human brain was published prior to the advent of modern medicine. This means that the knowledge that was used to develop this diagram was obtained through the cumulative studies of living patients who sustained brain injuries that were caused by accidents or violent attacks. It is also possible that unethical surgical practice took place in order to obtain this knowledge as well. It is documented in medical history that the unethical practice of psychosurgery which involved cutting into living people's brains was performed for decades during the 20th century.

For another example, what experiment did doctors use in order to obtain the knowledge of how long humans can survive without food and water? Many sources claim that this knowledge was acquired by observation of famine and not through experimentation. It is also entirely possible that this information was obtained by experimentation.

The cases of unethical and deadly medical experimentation that are listed include the Nazi Medical Experiments and Japan's Unit 731. It is said that “Unit 731 was able to prove scientifically that the best treatment for frostbite was to immerse it in water a bit warmer than 100 degrees but never more than 122 degrees.”

Much of the knowledge of scientific teachings are professed and learned without discussing the acquisition of the knowledge itself. In order to attain a greater understanding of scientific education we must always ask the question: “What experiment was used to obtain this information?” 

© 2021 Hazon, Nir 

Share:

Read More