Foundations (Philosophy of Knowledge Series, #1)

Any philosophy must begin by laying a foundation of postulates from which proofs may proceed.

First postulate: I exist.
The sine qua non.  Eons have been spent proving that one's self exists.  Of all the self-evident propositions, none seems more obvious than this.

Second postulate: I perceive.
I able to collect information about things that appear around me.

Third postulate: I imagine
I can create mental concepts ("thoughts") internally and independent of what I perceive.

Fourth postulate: I think
I am able to process and interpret that which I perceive and imagine.

Fifth postulate: I reason.
I am able to combine my thoughts to establish a conclusion, belief or knowledge.

What's with all the "I"s?

Some of you may have noticed that this post is full of "I" statements.  My choice to use the first person is intentional and is not meant to imply "only I", but rather that "I" is the logical starting point for a philosophy of knowledge.

Value #4: Don't be afraid of the Data

Like tools, inventions and firearms, data are not inherently evil or good. Data simply are. Some data are correct, some data are incorrect, but unless the data were produced illegitimately, we should not be afraid of the data.

How we use the data, the conclusion we draw, the actions we take based on our conclusions, the philosophies we build on those conclusions, those may be judged good or evil, but the underlying data can only be judged correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate, perhaps even mostly accurate, but not quite. But under no circumstances are the data themselves subject to moral judgements.

We don't have to like the data, we don't have to agree with the data, but we cannot alter it, dismiss it or ignore it without reason. If it is in error, then we must expose the error; if it is incomplete, we must complete it; if it is anomalous, we must explain the anomaly, not ignore it. To ignore the data only exposes our own ignorance and irrationality. I much prefer the man who admits "I believe contrary to the evidence presented, but I do consider the evidence. Would you like to present it differently?", for this man will listen. More importantly, this man has things to teach me, because there is reason to his belief, not just blind adherence to a doctrine he little understands.

Not everything you know agrees with what you believe. Science is not nearly as neat and clear-cut as we would like to believe. There is much disagreement over what the data mean. Don't fear the conflict. Relish it. Enter the fray and dig deeper into the data that contradict your beliefs.