Logic is the basis on which we criticise epistemology. In turn, epistemology is the basis on which we criticise knowledge.
I have recently participated in a discussion with a group of logically illiterate plebeians who are somehow under the illusion that they have the right to mock my perspective (meta-theory) on epistemology simply because my epistemology differs from their own epistemology. This is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they seem happy to mock my perspective while under the illusion that they are somehow more informed / intelligent than I am.
The following was my response:
Consider the fact that people usually have a very good grasp of their own perspective, but very poor grasp of another person’s perspective. As far as I can tell, Popper made many valid criticisms, but failed to see the similarities between his own version of falsification and the versions of justification that others held to.
What I’ve been doing here is to explain my own perspective on the matter, but many of the people here just keep harping on about how my perspective is different from theirs, as though that immediately meant my perspective was wrong. Which is absurd, because you can’t falsify one perspective with another perspective. My perspective is, in the language of Critical Preference, simply a competing theory. It is ridiculous to say that one theory can falsify another theory. Contradictory? Yes, of course. Falsified? A categorical NO.
Realise that I am merely proposing my own perspective on Critical Rationalism. I am not insisting that my perspective is identical to Popper’s perspective. Because obviously I disagree with the kind of Critical Preference proposed by Popper et al.
I have my own understanding of Critical Rationalism, and you have your own understanding of Critical Rationalism. It is clear that our understandings diverge, i.e. we disagree. Different perspectives cannot falsify each other. People here don’t seem to understand that.
They even fail to understand that logic is the foundation of Critical Rationalism, in the sense that logic is the one thing that all humans are supposed to share. Without a common set of a priori logic (or at least, a set of logic that humans tentatively agree on), humans can’t meaningfully compare anything objectively.
What is now clear to me, is that people here simply have no prior understanding of _Logic_. This is why our exchanges have been so ineffective.
As I have mentioned, we use Logic to criticise Epistemology, the same way we use Epistemology to criticise Knowledge.
So, if people here do not even understand Logic, then they are simply unable to meaningfully criticise my epistemology (or any epistemology, for that matter).
Or, another way to say this is that if our logical systems differ, then obviously we won’t be able to meaningfully share the same criticisms for epistemology.
Want to criticise epistemology? Better go learn some logic first. Or at least, learn about the relationship between Logic, Epistemology, and Knowledge.
I have my own religion, you have your own religion(s). My religion cannot falsify your religion, and neither can your religion falsify mine.
If you wanna be a religious bigot, and insist that my religion is wrong just because it is different from yours, then … good luck with that.