In most of the philosophical textbooks, epistemology is interpreted either as the branch of philosophy that studies the origin, nature, kinds, validity, and limits of human knowledge, or as the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its scope, methods, and validity, and the distinction between justified belief and personal opinion. Gnoseology is frequently defined as the philosophy of knowledge, the philosophic theory of knowledge, the theory of human faculties for learning, and the theory of cognition. Furthermore, (classical) gnoseology is also seen as the metaphysical theory of knowledge. There are publications that refer to gnoseology as the theory of non-human rooted knowledge. Interestingly, Nikitchenko proposed to use a gnoseology-based approach for developing methodological, conceptual, and formal levels of foundations of informatics.
Broadly speacking: Gnoseology is a theory of knowledge; Epistemology is a theory of scientific knowledge. That's why I would say that the correct representation is G encloses E.
Historically we cannot find an Epistemology until the last 2 centuries, while gnoseology was an important chapter of each philosophical manual since Aristotle's time.
Episteme comes from epi istamai, which could be translated as "to stay firmly above", in philosphical terms it refers to a well grounded knowledge. In contemporary debates we often see epistemologist struggling to elaborate the conditions of possibility of a given scientific theory, and I guess this purpose can fairly describe what Epistemology is. This leads us to consider, even from the adopted vocabulary, the kantian roots of this very concept, which indeed is a modern one, but this will bring us away from the topic.
I hope this answer could help in some way. Good luck with your work.
imho
let's see the Greek roots;
gnosis = individual knowledge
episteme = system of knowledge, which may be intersubjective
From some perspectives, Gnoseology is the "theory of general knowledge", and Epistemology reffers to the "theory of scientific knowledge", because Gnoseology studies knowledge as an intermediate phenomenon between its two elements: subject and object of knowledge, so it is relevant the way both are conceived as entities. On the other hand, epistemological thinking may relate to gnoseology but it trascends this level of analysis, as it takes care of the specific conditions of production and validation of scientific knowledge (historical, psychological, sociological circumstances and justification criteria). Some say there has been a transition from gnoseology to epistemology speciffically with Auguste Comte's works.
Hope it helps.
In addition (imho too)
gnosis as a knowledge is opposed to an opinion, belief, trust etc.;
epistheme as a system of knowledge is opposed to a non-systematic (non-prooved, non-established etc.) point of view, creedence etc.
Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your help and the information offered. I must tell you there is a specific objective behind my intention to collect much more information about the modern (meaning contemporary) interpretation of gnoseology, and the various views and perspectives related to it. I would be pleased to learn what it now covers and can cover. But as an immediate follow up, let me summarize what I took out from your helpful replies. Dr. Tchoussov wrote: “gnosis = individual knowledge”, but not just an opinion, belief, trust, etc. Dr. Sancho wrote: “Gnoseology is the "theory of general knowledge", and epistemology refers to the "theory of scientific knowledge. Leaving out metaphysical aspects, based on Dr. Tchoussov’s clarification, I can conclude that gnoselogy is primarily concerned with the non-universal (particular, incomplete, non-justified) knowledge. Then, not giving any consideration to scientific knowledge, which according to the clarification of Dr. Sancho is covered by epistemology, we may claim that gnoseology focuses on non-scientific knowledge (or the whole complement of scientific knowledge), which as we know may have many sources, such as common-sense, religion, authority. Is it correct to say that gnoseology addresses these scientifically not justifiable domains of knowledge? May this knowledge include knowledge that is acquired (or synthesized) by smart and intelligent systems? Would you please share your opinion on the above reasoning, from which I intentionally left out the differences in the interests of looking at knowledge that was mentioned by Dr. Sancho?
Dear Dr. Fatih, Please be so kind to provide me with additional explanation and information. I would like to learn how to combine your thoughts and knowledge with mine and that of the other colleagues. Thanks a lot in advance. Imre Horvath
Is it possible to describe the relationship between gnoseology and epistemology formally? If yes, then which of the schemes shown in the attachement expresses their relationship most exactly?
Broadly speacking: Gnoseology is a theory of knowledge; Epistemology is a theory of scientific knowledge. That's why I would say that the correct representation is G encloses E.
Historically we cannot find an Epistemology until the last 2 centuries, while gnoseology was an important chapter of each philosophical manual since Aristotle's time.
Episteme comes from epi istamai, which could be translated as "to stay firmly above", in philosphical terms it refers to a well grounded knowledge. In contemporary debates we often see epistemologist struggling to elaborate the conditions of possibility of a given scientific theory, and I guess this purpose can fairly describe what Epistemology is. This leads us to consider, even from the adopted vocabulary, the kantian roots of this very concept, which indeed is a modern one, but this will bring us away from the topic.
I hope this answer could help in some way. Good luck with your work.
A possible difference between epistemology and gnoseology is that the former deals with the study of scientific knowledge whereas the latter deals with the study of knowledge in general. Piaget, for example, is an epistemologist mainly concerned with the emergence and development of new forms of knowing appear over time and how these forms of knowing become necessary once constructed. Kant, for example, was concerned with gnoseology (e.g., is knowledge possible?), not with epistemology (e.g, how does a child come to understand the number concept?) In other words, epistemology appeals to the philosophy of science and experimentation, whereas gnoseology uses only armchair speculation. In this vein, gnoseology is a broader and looser concept than the epistemology concept.
This may appear an odd question, but when does knowledge become scientific? where does qualitative research fit into this relationship?
What are the exact criteria to distinguish scientific knowledge and general knowledge?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy