6982 Shares

What is the difference between Ontology & Epistemology?

What is the difference between Ontology & Epistemology? Topic: contents of research proposal
May 23, 2019 / By Jaiden
Question: I need to do a research proposal & im unsure as to what Ontological & Epistemological research methods are?!
Best Answer

Best Answers: What is the difference between Ontology & Epistemology?

Flurry Flurry | 1 day ago
Ontology and epistemology don't refer to research methods, they're branches/domains of philosophy. Ontology covers basically "what is", what is the nature of reality and its contents and structure. (e.g. the belief that there is an objective reality independent of our perceptions is an ontological position, and one on which the scientific method is primarily based) Epistemology is the 'theory of knowledge', and refers to what we can know about things, the nature of our knowledge of the world, how do we determine truth etc. (e.g. I believe that people have a working memory. Why did I form this belief, the distinction between knowing it and believing it, how/if I can assess this belief, are epistemological questions) Methodology, the theories, principles and basis of practically going about addressing these things, is usually based upon what your ontological and epistemological stances are.
👍 250 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? What is the difference between Ontology & Epistemology? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: contents of research proposal


Flurry Originally Answered: What is the difference between theory and epistemology in cultural (social) anthropology?
Epistomolgy is the study of knowledge, and is more rooted in philosophy. Theories are paradigms that explain particular phenomona, or look at many different phenomena through its own view. Epistomology is a study unto itself, as anthropology is, wheras theories are componenets which function within and between studies.
Flurry Originally Answered: What is the difference between theory and epistemology in cultural (social) anthropology?
In the US anthropology is comprised of 3 main subfields: cultural or social; archeology; and physical or biological. The focus of cultural anthro. has changed over recent years but still uses cross cultural studies (ethnologies) of human behavior. There is a subfield called urban anthro. that addresses how different groups interact today, such as an area that was all older immigrants and residents and now has an influx of new immigrants and residents and how their cultures mix together. It also consists of poverty, race relations, homeless, health care and the elderly.There are medical anthropologists, economic anthropologists and outside the university settings of applied anthropology. There is a connection between all these and that is why they fall under the anthropology umbrella. You need to know what courses you are looking for at a school. If they just teach cultural anthro. of older civilizations and you want current peoples interactions you may be disappointed. Contact each school you are interested in and make sure what they teach is what you need. I won't suggest any school because the quality of courses change with changes within a department or instructors. You need to investigate that on your own, take to undergrads and grad students, etc. Best of luck to you.
Flurry Originally Answered: What is the difference between theory and epistemology in cultural (social) anthropology?
Your professor is probably unsure of the difference too, and is making you all write this essay hoping he/she will figure it out by reading what you all have written. Call your professor out on it!

Flurry Originally Answered: Fallibilism - epistemology?
Fallibilism denies the possibility of knowledge. A fallibilist might say offhandedly that he knows the sun will rise tomorrow, but he would not write it in a philosophical paper. The language that we use in everyday speech is often different than our specific philosophical beliefs, and it is useful to employ shorthand from time to time. But specifically, would a fallibilist stand behind the statement "I know the sun will rise tomorrow?": No. Fallibilists believe that certainty is impossible (which of course it is). Fallibilism doesn't lower the bar of what is considered knowledge, in one sense they eradicate it, and in another sense they raise it. Since they believe (certain) knowledge is impossible, there is no bar to reach. Or if you prefer to think of it another way, they raise the bar of knowledge to a height that is impossible to achieve. Either way, knowledge is impossible, all that we can do is hold beliefs in accordance to the available evidence, and since it is impossible to have ALL the evidence, that is why it is impossible to know for certain. In answer to your question about the believer's fallibility: Some fallibilists say that empirical knowledge alone is impossible, and some say that all knowledge is impossible (even within axiomatic systems such as math). This means that some of them say it is the "fault" of the human system that WE cannot attain knowledge but it is in theory possible, and there are others who state that it is impossible to even know a truth value of a proposition, ever. The first position is a confusion, sort of like agnosticism, it really isn't sensible at all. The fallibilists that know what they are talking about deny the possibility of knowledge, not simply the fault of the believer. Fallibilism is basically science. Charles Pierce and Karl Popper both considered themselves fallibilists and they are the two biggest names in the Philosophy of Science in the last century. Science has the built-in feature of being adaptable, changeable, flexible, and therefore it is fallible, science can never provide certain knowledge (nor can anything else...) but it can give us adequate justification for our beliefs based on the evidence available. Fallibilism is correct and obvious, almost trivial. Even those who do not identify themselves as fallibilists probably are if they took the time to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions.
Flurry Originally Answered: Fallibilism - epistemology?
I think the best way to understand fallibilism is in contrast to skepticism. This is because the two philosophies agree about some of the underlying facts, but disagree about what that means. We all know, for example (or at least, we probably SHOULD know) that our senses are not perfectly accurate. Even for the narrow ranges of reality to which they are sensitive, they make mistakes and pre-process information instead of handing us raw data. And they are the primary bridge between the mind and the external world. To a hardcore skeptic, such a shaky bridge means we can't know much of anything in the first place. You can know subjective things, but you can never really know anything objective. You see the sky as blue, but you will never know if it is REALLY blue. Since there is always doubt, knowledge in impossible. A fallibilist takes rather the opposite approach. He would assert that even though you can't know things beyond ANY doubt, that hardly means that you don't know them. Even if you make complete guesses about things, some of them will turn out to be right. A good way to put it would be that reason helps eliminate wrongness even if it doesn't guarantee rightness. Tout the two views approach epistemology from opposite directions, to me they are not mutually exclusive. You could be a skeptical fallibilist and believe that knowledge is hard to come by and that even when you have it you can't be certain of it. You might be just a skeptic and believe that it's hard to get knowledge but once you have it you need never doubt it. Or you could be just a fallibilist and decide that you 'know' everything, just with greater or lesser degrees of uncertainty. So fallibilism doesn't NECESSARILY 'lower the bar' on what is considered knowledge, though I would say the tendancy is there simply because falliblists know they're going to self-correct later so they can afford to be more generous in the beginning. In practice, I think falliblists (knowing that they're prone to error) don't tend to make unilateral statments about what they know. Instead one might say "To the best of my knowledge the sun will rise tomorrow" or "I see no reason to believe that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow". They think they know something... what they don't know is whether it's correct.
Flurry Originally Answered: Fallibilism - epistemology?
Uncertainty s the basis for a perception of fallibilism. The sun will rise tomorrow is taken for granted that a black hole will not devour the galaxy tonight or some other natural phenomenon won't occur to render the statement false.

If you have your own answer to the question contents of research proposal, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.