Epistemological Perspective Text ( Sources) Coincides View

¶ … epistemological perspective text ( sources) coincides view truth human mind grasps reality. Explain find

There are several different perspectives of epistemology, which is the justification for or the source of belief upon which all knowledge is based. One of the most compelling viewpoints that serve to explain how humans can actually perceive truth is empiricism. Essentially, empiricism is the notion that the truth can be ascertained via sensory information from the five traditional sources (hearing, seeing, tasting, touching, and smelling). There are a couple of central tenets to this epistemological approach, one of the most salient of which is the fact that whatever cannot be validated from the five senses cannot be accepted as truth by those adhering to the empirical perspective of epistemology. Still, the rationale behind this point-of-view is extremely logical, represents some of the earliest thought on this subject, and can be readily employed to validate any number of facts.

The basis for the conviction in truth as something that one can perceive with his five senses is significantly based upon how the human mind actually functions, and the role that sensory perception has on it. Each sense provides a series of data or information about our surroundings that resonates within our minds. For example, were people in imminent danger due to a large, deadly, earthquake, they could readily validate this fact by actually feeling the earth and the structures built upon it trembling and swaying. In this instance, people's sense of perception alerts them to the fact that they are in danger due to the confirmed presence of this particular form of natural disaster. This simple reflex reaction -- one takes in information via the senses, and then assesses a relevant, logical reason for the information -- is the principle way that the mind functions in conjunction with the body, and is the most convincing form of evidence that empirical epistemology is one of the most reliable methods of ascertaining the truth.

Although empiricism helps to explain many different types of knowledge and forms of the truth, it is still somewhat doubtful as to whether or not people can actually know the full, detailed truth about any particular thing. This doubt is largely related to the fact that the truth can always be questioned, and that questions can inherently be interminable in nature -- leading to more questions. In this respect, the adage that the more we learn, the less we actually know about the world holds quite true. If one were to continue with the example of the earthquake presented on the preceding, page, for instance, the veracity of the aforementioned statement becomes clear. In the event that someone felt his or her house shaking and deduced that there was an earthquake taking place, such knowledge would only be a small part of a larger truth. Sure, there is an earthquake taking place. Yet this knowledge only leads to further questions on the subject such as: what exactly is an earthquake? What takes place for that to happen? The traditional definitions regarding a shifting of the plate's at the earth's core sounds plausible, but who has actually seen them? Although some people may have, the person in the preceding example feeling the earthquake more than likely has not. To fully understand what and why such a thing is taking place requires more questions, and empirically, some of those questions cannot be validated and would require believing images and words written by others which is simple faith -- and not true epistemology.