Types of Epistemology - Not Touching Chapter 2 Yet

The author beat me to trying to defend imperfect epistemology. After gaining a better understanding of the three different types of epistemology, there were a few parallels I drew. I had a hard time grasping why anyone would strictly go for perfect epistemology, I would say that it was closest to verificationism to me. Even though it’s true that perfect epistemology ensures that everything you believe is able to be proven, I don’t know how you would go about gaining any new knowledge. Going on assumptions and contested data might not be the most ideal method of searching for truth, but testing new and wild hypothesis based off of bizarre and unexpected findings is one of the ways people stay interested in looking for new truths.

If the choice is between never being wrong and being wrong while looking for something more, it almost makes perfect epistemology look cowardly. Pure epistemology was almost moving into the realm of pluralism, but Elgin instead explains that pure epistemology is true within the context of the environmental structure, so it lends itself instead to be relativism. Lynch would say that relativism is a simple-minded waste of time, but being a product of a procedure seems to fit the explanation closely. Only being able to dispute practices that fit within the mechanisms, although it is explained as a pure epistemology, it seems to align more with perfect epistemology. It seems this way since it’s only willing to take on certain truths, and since perfect epistemology only deals with what can be absolutely true, the two seem related in theory. Perhaps it’s the limited scope of these two theories that caused Elgin to want to elaborate on imperfect epistemology for her book.