Differences In Epistemology

No one can rationally expect to get very far in conversations with others unless the two parties share the same or very similar epistemology.  It amazes me that people sometimes engage in repeated discussion with others knowing that they dispute the appropriate foundation of knowledge and yet they still anticipate that their epistemology will persuade their opponents when it is completely different from that of those they are conversing with.

Exposure to the beliefs of others does no good unless one deconstructs, dissects, and analyses them properly.  People with different epistemologies will never agree on what qualifies as evidence and (more importantly) proof and therefore will never concur on what conclusions are true and what reasoning is sound.  Someone like me finds no benefit from talking with such people except to learn what ideas are assumptive and unverifiable.  Many people seem to know that they will enter a conversation only to conclude it by telling the other discusser that they simply disagree and that it is pointless to continue trying to persuade each other further.  Anyone who wants to find truth without being bogged down by people's unwillingness to make no assumptions will flee from this epistemology, for it sacrifices absolute certainty and the rigidness of truth for the sake of mutual agreement and shared persuasion.

Because of this foundational disagreement over the obtaining and verification of knowledge, people with opposing epistemologies often "agree to disagree", which does not propel anyone forward on their quest for truth.  A retreat back into comforting but unverified personal beliefs because one couldn't prove his or her epistemology correct is not a sign of maturity but one of intellectual bankruptcy.  To find truth, one must begin with an epistemology which can grant total certainty of at least some things.  Otherwise, one can claim to assume, hope, prefer, believe, or accept that something is true, but one cannot claim to know it is true.  That is why I am a rationalist who starts my epistemology with axioms and truths which are inescapable and knowable a priori and why I have little patience for people who start with other beginning points.

Fitheists and adherents of scientism will never accomplish much in their discussions, and neither will representatives of opposing epistemic foundations.  Presuppositionalists and rationalists, for example, will merely frustrate each other if they engage in serious debate or dialogue due to the absolutely irreconcilable differences in their epistemologies.  Our society values tolerance and superficial peace and thus it certainly promotes the idea of "agreeing to disagree" with people of alternate worldviews, but this approach does not ultimately help people who value truth enough to pursue it wholeheartedly as I do.  When dealing with people of other epistemic worldviews, I find myself irritated because I understand that whether me and my opponent concur or disagree on a particular point there is only a very minimal amount of intellectual benefit I can acquire from the talk if we don't even have the same starting point.  After all, if this is the case, I should not expect the two of us to prioritize verification methods in the same way or to understand or accept facts in the same manner.

When debating others, don't settle for negotiating complex ideas with people who don't have correct epistemologies when you can target their epistemology at its foundation and shatter their beliefs at a much more intimate and base level.  This is when conversational progress is made--when people collectively begin their epistemology at the correct place and do not deviate from the straight and narrow path.