Knowing What We Know (And What We Don't)

Sunday, September 22, 2019
First Aired: 
Sunday, March 19, 2017

What is it

It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we know if what we believe to be true is really knowledge? Can our beliefs be both justified and true, yet still not count as genuine knowledge? If so, then how much confidence should we really have in our beliefs? Is there a way to strike a balance between paralyzing skepticism, on the one hand, and dogmatic conviction, on the other? John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor of Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.

Part of a six-part series on Intellectual Humility.

Listening Notes

How can we avoid dogmatic arrogance but also avoid the paralysis of doubt? We ought to avoid cutting ourselves from opposing viewpoints, but at the same time we ought to avoid becoming susceptible to invalid viewpoints -- like those of climate denial. How can we balance skepticism and dogmatism?

John and Ken are joined by Baron Reed, associate professor of philosophy at Northwestern University and author of The Long Road to Skepticism. Baron discusses his early fascination with David Hume’s skepticism and how his line of questioning radically destabilized people’s worldviews and sense of reality. Baron also argues that there are varying kinds of knowledge and how competence in one kind does not transfer onto others. 

Ken brings into the conversation recent psychological research that appears to demonstrate that the human brain is not wired to accept new points of view. Baron, however, responds that this impulsive nature to close our minds can be overcome, especially if one pays attention to instances when we have to rethink our positions. 

Baron further argues that knowledge need not be defined in terms of absolute certainty, as you could claim to have knowledge even if there is potential room for doubt. This is important when it comes to issues that are complicated by “merchants of doubt,” like organizations that deny climate change or the harmful effects of smoking. In these cases, it’s not always 100% provable without any sliver of doubt, but that does not mean that the positive claims put forward are valid. 

In this domain, philosophy can be understood as one of the most practical fields of study, as it trains individuals to come up with the best possible argument for a given point of view and to thoroughly address an opposing argument in its most convincing form. Philosophy in this sense is less an accumulation of doctrines and more an attitude and orientation of questioning toward the world.

Comments (2)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, September 6, 2019 -- 8:08 AM

This entire subject reminds

This entire subject reminds me of the now-famous Donald Rumsfeld explanation of 'known knowns'; 'unknown knowns'; 'unknown unknowns' and the rest of it. By the time he completed his tirade about all of this, I was pretty certain his analysis was bogus---an attempt to sound learned, while making the waters ever-muddier on the subject of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and counter-counter intelligence (sort of a quasi-serious take on the old Spy vs. Spy from Bill Gaines' Mad Magazine). Before and after Hume, philosophers have cautioned us to be clear about what we know, as opposed to believing we know a thing, while lacking sufficient and incontrovertible proof. This, unfortunately, illustrates the dilemmas faced by decision makers when designing a horse (see the earlier PT post, regarding how difficult it is to get decisions made). Public intellectuals receive countless criticisms for espousing ideas and supporting causes that somehow fail to meet the litmus test(s) for veracity, making me happy not to be in their unenviable shoes. Research on brain wiring aside, I like to challenge myself by 'jootsing' those things which are difficult to 'wrap-one's-mind around'. With this 'jumping outside the space' approach, I avoid (as much as possible) preconceptions and other forms of bias, allowing me to give consideration to improbable or unlikely ideas and outcomes. I'm indebted to Doug and Dan for this epiphany. An open mind is a terrible thing to eschew.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, September 6, 2019 -- 8:13 AM

Sorry for the confusion (if

Sorry for the confusion (if there was any...). The third part of the 'knowns' portion of the first sentence in my comment should have read: 'unknown unknowns'. I have edited that accordingly. It didn't look right in the first place, but I was in a hurry---not usual for me...

Listen

 
 

Baron Reed, Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University

 
 
 

Bonus Content

 

Research By

Jack Herrera
 

Upcoming Shows

22 September 2019

Knowing What We Know (And What We Don...

It seems like we know many facts about ourselves and the world around us, even if there vastly many others we know that we don’t know. But how do we...

29 September 2019

Explanation At Its Best

In both everyday life and science, we often feel the pull of simpler, more elegant, or more beautiful explanations. For example, you notice the...

06 October 2019

The Allure of Authoritarianism

In George Orwell’s 1984, the party’s “final, most essential command” was “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Authoritarian regimes call...