My attempt towards discovering this discipline of philosophy called as epistemology initially started with a benign question — How do I know with certainty what I believe is true?

In this attempt, I had to meander around all the previous schools of thought surrounding this question, including the likes of dogmatism, skepticism, empiricism, relativism and finally, critical rationalism.

I’ve come across epistemology as a discipline before, but I’ve often mocked with all seriousness as to why on earth would someone discuss this ‘boring’ concept in a bar? I thought this had nothing to do with our day to day life, and it’s a topic often taken up by philosophers more seriously without any practical implications. But I was entirely wrong.

Epistemology is so important for leaders/managers who are in the business of taking good decisions.

Every day in our work lives, we deal with the same question which epistemology talks about — What is true? why should we believe with certainty that a certain narrative is true? What is a better explanation of a fact? is it even a fact or an assumption?

I’ll start unpacking all the ‘isms’, with a heavily loaded caveat that I’m no philosopher. Heck, I haven’t even researched this enough, and I would certainly be treated with great scorn by the practitioners, but what I would like to present is a simple thought experiment—At the annual conference on epistemology, when philosophers from various schools of thought gathered together…

…

They where presented with this question by the moderator: ‘How do you know what you believe is true?’

Dr. Fallible first stood up.  “We can never be absolutely certain,” she began. “Fallibilism teaches us that any of our beliefs could potentially be wrong. We should remain open to new evidence and arguments, even while treating some issues as settled for practical purposes.”

Dr. Senses interjected, “But surely, our senses provide reliable information about the world! Empiricism holds that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience and observation.”

“Building on that,” added Prof. Pattern, “inductivism suggests we can use these observations to form general principles. We observe patterns and make predictions based on past experiences.”

Dr. Absolute stood up, looking confident. “You’re all missing the point. Some truths are self-evident and beyond doubt. Dogmatism asserts that certain core beliefs are absolutely true and immune to revision.”

“But what’s true for one person might not be true for another,” countered Dr. Subjective. “Relativism posits that truth and knowledge are relative to individuals, cultures, or contexts”

Prof. Popper, a critical rationalist, shook his head. “We should focus on falsification, not verification. Critical rationalism advocates for the method of ‘trial and error.’ We propose theories and then try to disprove them, learning from our mistakes.

Finally, Dr. Probability spoke up. “Bayesianism offers a mathematical framework for updating our beliefs based on new evidence. We assign probabilities to hypotheses and revise them as we gather more information.

As the debate concluded, David Deutsch stood up. “These perspectives all contribute to our understanding, but I believe we need a new synthesis,” he said.

“We should embrace fallibilism and critical rationalism, recognizing that our knowledge is always tentative. Yet, we can make progress through conjecture and criticism, seeking better explanations rather than mere justifications.”

…

Of course, David Deutsch never said these same words, this was just for the sake of the thought experiment. This speculative Epistemology conference never happened.

Deutsch argues that the growth of knowledge comes not from accumulating observations (inductivism) or seeking justifications (dogmatism), but from creating and refining explanatory theories that can be tested and potentially falsified.

We’re used to seeing confirmation bias everywhere, and to find ways to practise “disconfirmation bias”, as suggested by Deutsch and Karl Popper is so so hard. We often don’t look at ways to falsify our beliefs as much as possible.

Something for decision makers to think about. Critical rationalism is a very powerful lens when applied in these contexts.