Epistemology is known as "the study of knowledge" and was founded by Ancient Greek philosophers. Unlike my Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge which identifies and defines the classifications of knowledge that are relevant to the modern era, in epistemology they give consideration to opinions which I do not classify as knowledge in my model. An opinion is not considered as having knowledge of something, but it is rather a mere thought or interpretation that we construct based on our understanding of the knowledge at hand and it exists in our perception alone. In epistemology, they give consideration to cognitive success as a factor in the study of knowledge. In my model of the classifications of knowledge, cognitive failure would be viewed as having bad skills like not having your math down. My model for the acceptance of knowledge is to be applied to all teachings of knowledge on a universal scope by recognizing the identification of the types of knowledge that exist in the modern era and by knowing which types of knowledge require giving serious consideration to in order to counter indoctrination, which is the acceptance of knowledge without giving it serious consideration.
All other knowledge of epistemology has unnecessary considerations such as the factor of luck on knowledge and knowledge of knowing a person, all of which do not give consideration to what we are to accept as knowledge which I outline in my Model for the Classifications of Knowledge in the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge.
On the Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance in Epistemology
People don't understand just how irrelevant Ancient Greek philosophy is to this day. Epistemology, at least, is far outdated with new types of knowledge that exist in the modern era that we are being asked to accept such as scientific and pseudo-scientific knowledge. The Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance is inadequate in providing a method for how to accept knowledge and includes practices of fiction such as placing a number value on the quantity of confidence towards accepting the value of a belief as true or false.
"a degree of confidence greater than 0.5 is not necessary to warrant rational acceptance." -Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance
Such a measurement is based on fiction. The Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance doesn't identify the classifications of knowledge that I have identified in my Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge.
In the Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance, the view of acceptance that is proposed is that of deciding between competing aims of the truth, where in my Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge I go in depth on the types of knowledge that we are being asked to accept as well as separate them by what is to be easily-accepted and what is up for consideration.
From the Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance by Mark Kaplan (1981):
"The integrity of this sketch ultimately depends upon the viability of its picture of rational investigators as agents who adjudicate between the competing aims of truth and comprehensiveness when deciding what to accept."
This view of acceptance in this theory is a view whose goal is to decide between competing beliefs of the truth, judging what is to be accepted based on factors such as the consequences one might face for what they choose to accept as the truth.
We can see this in the Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance:
We can see this in the Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance:
"On the view of acceptance being adopted here, the historian is faced with a straightforward choice: either (i) defend the conjunction of the propositions in her book and, hence, the proposition that everything she defends in it is true; or (ii) defend the denial of the conjunction and, hence, the proposition that not everything she defends in the book is true; or (iii) do neither (i) nor (ii). (Given the consistency constraint rightly imposed by (2), the historian cannot on pain of irrationality choose both (i) and (ii).) If she chooses to take the first option, she will achieve a great deal of comprehensiveness at the cost of incurring a high risk of defending something false. Option (ii) offers very little comprehensiveness but also very little risk of falsehood. Option (iii) offers no comprehensiveness and no risk of falsehood. If X is well-disposed towards the second rational course described above - if she feels that large trade-offs of the desire for truth in favor of the desire for comprehensiveness are worthwhile - she may be entirely rational to choose the first option and reject the others. That is, she may be rational to reject (i.e., accept the denial of) the claim that not everything she accepts is true"
This theory does not consider the truth of the knowledge itself that we are being asked to accept as true, but instead aims to explain how decisions are made between different choices of the truth based on the consequences of the acceptance thereof.
The Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance by Mark Kaplan is a work of fiction and it measures what we are to accept by propositions, which are judgements or opinions. I cannot believe that they still teach this in college classrooms to this day.
In my Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge, which is what seems to be the first of it's kind, I identify the types of knowledge that exist in today's world as Indisputable Knowledge, which includes Observation-based Knowledge and Deduction-based Knowledge, and Questionable Knowledge, which includes Story-based Knowledge, Speculation-based Knowledge, and Pseudo-scientific Knowledge. This Model for the Classifications of Knowledge in the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge identifies the different types of knowledge that exist in modern times and separates what is to be easily-accepted from what is up for consideration.
There is no math formula to the consideration of the truth of knowledge if we base the truth on it's existence.
Although I learned much from the useful and applicable knowledge of the Ancient Greek philosophers, I must admit to myself that I have surpassed them with my Model for the Classifications of Knowledge in the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge.
Enjoy my written work of philosophical literature that may be the smartest theory that anybody has ever come up with in the history of mankind!
Below are the links to my Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge
Click the link below to view:
Click the link below to view:
by Nir Hazon
© 2021 Hazon, Nir
