====== Epistemic fallacy ====== A form of [[index|epistemological fallacy]] in which it is mistakenly assumed that the existence of a thing or a fact automatically implies that it is known or can be known. In short: “Only that of which we have knowledge exists”. For example: > We have not yet found any evidence that life exists on other planets. > We should therefore assume that “extraterrestrials” do not exist. This conclusion confuses //knowledge// (Ancient Greek: epistéme [ἐπιστήμη]) with //existence//. These are, however, two completely different matters. ===== Terminology notes ===== ==== Other names ==== * Epistemic reductionism * Ontic-epistemic confusion * Argument from ignorance * McNamara fallacy ==== Origin of the name ==== The term “epistemic fallacy” was coined by the British philosopher [[wp>Roy Bhaskar|Roy Bhaskar]] in his work “A Realist Theory of Science”((Bhaskar, Roy: [[https://archive.org/details/realisttheoryofs0000bhas/page/n3/mode/2up|A Realist Theory of Science]] (1975), Leeds Books, Leeds, UK. ISBN: [[isbn>0859520145|0 85952 014 5]].)). However, //Bhaskar// used the term in a rather narrow sense, namely specifically to refer to the reduction of //being// (ontology) to //knowledge// (epistemology). In doing so, he linked the term closely to his theory of //critical realism.// In modern usage, the term is understood somewhat more broadly and can be applied to any fallacy in which //knowledge// is confused with //existence//. This article describes the phenomenon in the latter sense. ===== Description ===== Looking back at the history of science, it is not difficult to find numerous examples of how new discoveries changed our view of the world completely: be it through the discovery of previously unknown continents ([[wp>Americas|the Americas]], [[wp>Australia (continent)|Australia]], [[wp>Antarctica|Antarctica]]), new physical realities (e.g. [[wp>Electromagnetism|electromagnetism]], [[wp>Atom|atoms]], [[wp>Quantum mechanics|quantum phsics]]) or living organisms (e.g. [[wp>Giant squid|giant squids]]) to name but a few. It is highly likely that there are still other things to be discovered that will, one day, take their rightful place in general knowledge – or at least in the specialist knowledge of certain disciplines – things whose existence we are as yet unaware of. Perhaps one day we will even indeed discover //extraterrestrial life//. Even from this perspective alone, it is clear that we cannot assume we possess knowledge of everything that exists, nor, conversely, that our body of knowledge fully and accurately reflects the whole of reality. But it’s not just about “big science”. The underlying way of thinking starts on a very small scale: ==== Background: Learning about object permanence ==== The distinction between //perception// (in the sense of “what one can see”) and //existence// (here: “what exists independently of perception”) does not appear to be innate in humans. The ever-popular [[wp>Peekaboo|peek-a-boo]] game, in which parents briefly hide their faces and then reveal them again, is in fact more than just entertainment. Through this, children learn that objects and people do not simply “cease to exist” when they disappear from view. This helps children to learn this important concept in a playful way. Although it may seem far-fetched to compare a simple children’s game to a fallacy, especially one named after an abstract philosophical discipline, the underlying error of the //epistemic fallacy// can be explained somewhat simplistically – and perhaps even polemically – as such that the lesson that perception and existence are independent of one another has not been properly transferred to other fields of knowledge. ==== Epistemic reductionism ==== One practical problem arising from this fallacy concerns the extent to which //reality// can be represented in //knowledge// at all. This is particularly relevant when one considers that many phenomena in reality are extremely complex and cannot always be captured in mathematical or other theoretical models. One approach to doing this is known as “epistemic reductionism”. Under this approach, only that which is measurable – or at least knowable – is regarded as “real”, whilst everything else is ignored. However, the term is more commonly used in the //criticism// of such an approach, as it commits precisely the fallacy under discussion: confusing knowledge with existence. In this sense, “epistemic reductionism” is sometimes also used as a synonym for the //epistemic fallacy.// This may initially appear like a highly theoretical problem, but it has very real practical implications: in the field of business management, for example, there is a tendency to represent all aspects of an enterprise in [[wp>Performance indicator|key performance indicators]] (KPIs) – often with the result that aspects which cannot be captured by such figures are ignored or called into question. However, a company’s long-term success depends not only on quantifiable factors such as [[wp>Productivity|productivity]] or [[wp>Rate of return|rate of return]], but also on “soft” factors that are difficult to measure, such as the company’s //reputation// or the //trust// that customers and employees place in it. To ignore these simply because they cannot be measured is a prime example of such “epistemic reductionism”. This way of thinking is not exclusive to the corporate world. For instance, the United States’ strategy during the [[wp>Vietnam War|Vietnam War]] was heavily focused on //quantitative measures// such as comparing the number of casualties (so-called “body counts”) and largely ignored “soft” factors such as the impact of the war on public support at home – not to mention support in third countries. This narrow perspective is sometimes referred to as the “[[wp>McNamara fallacy|McNamara fallacy]]”, named after the US Secretary of Defence at the time. ===== Delimitation ===== This epistemic fallacy specifically concerns the conflation of knowledge and existence. However, there are numerous related fallacies which, in some cases, may also overlap with this one. The [[rhetorics:defasible_arguments:argument_from_ignorance:index|argument from ignorance]] is a form of //rhetorical fallacy// in which it is claimed that if one has no knowledge of something, then it presumably does not exist (or, more commonly, is not a concern). In many cases, the //epistemic fallacy// is likely to be the underlying misconception behind this practice. The [[abstraction:ontological_fallacy|ontological fallacy]] is a //fallacy of abstraction// in which the existence of a term or concept is taken to imply that the phenomenon it describes must also exist. If one regards words or concepts as a possible form of expression of knowledge, it is easy to see that, at least in some cases, this overlaps with the //epistemic fallacy.// The [[ambiguity:intensional_fallacy|intentional fallacy]], particularly in the form of the [[ambiguity:masked_man|“masked man”]], can be regarded as a subtype of the //epistemic fallacy// if one focuses on the aspect of drawing conclusions out of incomplete knowledge. ===== Further examples ===== ==== Undiagnosable conditions in medicine ==== One area in which the mindset that “if it cannot be measured, it does not exist” can be particularly problematic is //medicine//. For a long time, patients whose ailments could not be attributed to immediately identifiable physical causes were often not taken seriously by doctors and researchers. Problems such as chronic pain or mental health conditions, which cannot be diagnosed by X-rays or blood tests, were (and, at least in some cases, still are) dismissed as “imaginary” or “laziness”. The underlying attitude can be summarised as: “We cannot find a cause, so there isn’t one” – or, to put it another way: the limits of available diagnostic knowledge are equated with the limits of reality. A prime example of an //epistemic fallacy.// Even though medicine has advanced considerably in recent decades and many of these conditions are now recognised (not least due to the growing recognition of [[wp>Psychology|psychology]] and [[wp>Psychotherapy|psychotherapy]]), we are still a long way from reaching the limits of our understanding. Moreover, naturally not every new insight has yet found its way into every GP’s practice. And the consequences for those affected go far beyond simply not receiving treatment: people living with an unrecognised condition often find themselves battling not only the illness itself, but also a lack of understanding from those around them. On top of this, it is not uncommon for them to harbour their own doubts as to whether their symptoms “really” exist. ===== See also ===== * [[abstraction:ontological_fallacy|Ontological fallacy]] * [[rhetorics:defasible_arguments:argument_from_ignorance:index|Argument from ignorance]] * [[logic:formal_fallacies:denying_the_antecedent|Denying the antecedent]]