Ever wonder how two people can look at the same issue, the same facts (transcript, video tape, testimony, etc.) or have the same exact experience and come away with completely different views about what happened? For centuries, humans have been wrestling with the question, “how can we really know anything.” As a freshman college student , I was introduced to epistemology; the philosophical study of knowledge, including its nature, origin, and limits.

The class was difficult and at times esoteric, but it challenged me to consider multiple dimensions of the world unfolding around me by addressing central questions:

• What is knowledge? What types of knowledge are there, and how do we create them? 
• How do we know things? What are the psychological processes that lead to knowledge, such as perception, memory, and reasoning 
• What are the limits of knowledge? What can and can’t people know, and what are the bounds of what’s epistemically permissible? 
• How do we justify truth claims? How do we determine if a belief is true, and what evidence supports it? 

While the philosophical underpinnings of the nature of understanding may not sound particularly exciting, it is especially relevant to a society that can’t seem to agree on anything. First, let’s examine how we gain knowledge. While there are many different way to categorize how we “know things”, these simple divisions can help our immediate understanding:

➡️Perception (empirical evidence)-What can be observed through the five senses. Knowledge is derived from what you see, hear, touch, taste, smell, etc. (This approach is a basis for scientific reasoning.)

➡️Reason (analysis of data)- What can be inferred by aggregating evidence collected and comparing to an idea or hypothesis to draw conclusion. (This approach is the basis for scientific thinking).

➡️Memory (personal experience)- What can be derived from a person’s previous life encounters. Knowledge is derived from first hand physical and mental encounters stored in an individual’s long term memory. Collective memory occurs when a group of people agree on a shared narrative of the past. (This approach intersects history, psychology, and neuroscience.)

➡️Testimony (belief in others)- accepting an idea because a trusted source says it is true.

➡️Introspection (examination of thoughts, ideas, and mental states)- carefully considering personal emotions motives and state of mind in proximity to subject matter

➡️Intuition a belief or inclination to believe that arises almost immediately. Sometimes referred to as “common sense”

➡️Faith a belief in doctrine or the divine based on spiritual understanding rather than empirical proof

With all these ways of knowing, it is incredible that we ever agree on anything! It is important that we realize that humans use all of these methods, sometimes simultaneously to draw conclusions and assign meaning. Individuals should recognize which of the ways of knowing are at play in conversation.

Arguments often begin when individuals base their knowledge on different constructs. Several years ago, I attended a function in which a friend I had known for many years gave an impassioned speech against the common core standards. She ascribed bad intent to the creators and made a series of false charges about the content. Her church had hosted meetings and made claims against the standards movement and she was warning our group against the “danger” of changes to curriculum. I was in an awkward position, because I had been invited to the meeting in Washington D.C. where the Chief State Schools Officers and invited educators had set up the work groups for the standards development. I had first hand knowledge of the genesis, intent, and outcomes of the new standards. What she was saying and what she “knew” did not in anyway resemble the conversation and actions that actually took place in the room where the standards discussion started. My first hand knowledge was directly in conflict with her “trusted source” knowledge. I tried to calmly and kindly redirect her. She now had a dilemma. Her knowledge from a trusted source (church affiliation) was being contradicted by another trusted source (personal friend).

Cognitively, this dissonance can create feelings of uncertainty and anxiety. Individuals deal with this in a variety of ways. One strategy is to select a “way of knowing” to the exclusion of the others. Some scientists reject intuition and faith. Some faith leaders reject perception and reason. Sometimes we rely on personal experience and memory without understanding that our perceptual filters, (the way the brain creates and prunes its pathways) can have a profound impact on what is remembered. And so it goes. When confronted with these differences we can feel unsettled, dismissive, or even angry.

We would do well to consider that there are multiple ways of “knowing”. The next time you find yourself getting upset at someone who can’t seem to get on your page, try to look beyond their claims to understand their epistemological “lens”. This opens the doorway to conversation about “why” we think in certain ways and will hopefully lead to greater understanding. At the very least, it should help clarify your own basis of claim. This is a great step toward responsible, meaningful, active civic participation.