Metatheory and Epistemological Issues: A Philosophical Approach to Communications

Metatheory and Epistemological Issues: a Philosophical Approach to Communications By Kriztine Rosales-Viray

This paper is a lot complicated than any other papers and articles I have written about communication because of the following reasons: (1) Communication was ever since of my interest but epistemology was a no-no; (2) I never had any leaning neither proclivity for philosophical studies; (3) I found philosophy intricate and complex as its proponents. Thus, if there are some flaws or errors in the manuscript, my apology.

Background. The real definition of philosophy is that it is a search for truth. In ordinary use of term” search”, it means to look or to find. This only gives the idea that ordinary searching stop after the thing being searched is found. On the other hand, “search” in philosophy is something which is more intense and more serious than ordinary “search”. It is a sort of like a “quest”. After a long and rigorous searching and realization of a particular truth, philosopher is set again to search for a general truth. Thus, search is continued without let up. Following this basic assumption with respect to the definition of philosophy, Little John’s statement that says: “Philosophy studies the basic foundations of ideas”, becomes tenable. Little John is in the opinion that the truth (knowledge) that is being sought in philosophy is something which is not only confined to material or physical things but this discipline goes beyond what simply appears. Hence, philosophy does not stop in the level of description but rather it goes up the level of metatheory? Fundamental questions about communication theories are within the purview of metatheory. This would be given an extensive explanation in section 1. Problems. The paper simply answers the following questions: (1) What is metatheory? (2) Where does human knowledge originated from? (3) Is there any certainty in human knowledge or can knowledge be certain? (4) What are the different ways to verify certainty of human knowledge? (5) Is knowledge best conceived in parts or wholes? (6) To what extent is knowledge explicit?

The afore stated questions will be addressed using the basic contentions of Little John which will be supplemented by the works of Samuel Enoch Stumpt (Philosophy: History and Problems), Amable Tuibeo (Philosophy: An Introduction), and Fernand Van Steenberghen (Epistemology).

In the language of Little John, metatheory is “…a body of speculation on the nature of inquiry that is above the specific content of given theories. It addresses such questions as what should be observed, how observation should take place, and what form theory should take. Metatheoretical debates are a natural consequence of uncertainty over the status of knowledge in a field.”

The definition of Little John is quite clear. Accordingly to him, metatheory is concern not with the content of theories but rather with fundamental questions, pertaining to the theories themselves. In other words, metatheory is here paralleled with philosophy. Or to be more apt, metatheory is where philosophical analysis of communication theories comes in. there are three major headings of philosophical questions: 1) epistemology, 2) ontology, and 3) axiology. (Refer to Figure 1 in appendix). The paper concentrates with epistemology. Other papers will be presented, in the same fashion, about ontology and axiology. Henceforth, the next section will be entirely devoted to the basic questions in epistemology. 2. Epistemological Issues Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which seeks to study knowledge i.e. human knowledge. Even during the time when philosophy, as a discipline, was still crude, there were already treatises concerning the problem of knowledge that surfaced. In the eastern part of the globe, for instance, Indian philosophy, which is said to have developed two thousand years before the western thought and civilization emerged, has already bits of theory about human knowledge. The carvaka system is one of which. In this system, ideas about things should always correspond with actual things. In fact, several western epistemological theories adapted the same principle e.g. the logical positivists. Little John believes that epistemological questions are not only important in the study and analysis of communication theories but also inevitable. It is impossible to discuss or have an exhaustive discussion about communication research and theory without being acquainted with the different issues of epistemology. The reason for this argument is that communication and knowledge always go side by side. Why? The content of communication is knowledge. There is nothing to communicate without knowledge, thus. One could hardly speak, if he does not have anything in the mind. Little John assumes that there are five basic issues in epistemology. However, it should be emphasized that some questions intertwined e.g. the question “To what extent can knowledge exist before experience?” is, in my opinion, already contained in the question “By what process does knowledge arise?”. In the latter, he mentions the method of empiricism wherein human knowledge arises in perception or experience. Thus, for the sake of clarity and convenience, I will present the issues differently but at the same time I will try to remain loyal to Little John.. Where does human knowledge originated from? In the history of western philosophy, this issue is a perennial problem. In other words, it is recurring. In the ancient period, during the time when Athens, Greece was the major producers of intellectuals, this issue has been debated over. The polemics between Plato and Aristotle is an indication of this. For Plato, who happens to be Aristotle’s guru, knowledge is generated by ideas which are innate. This means: one does not need to experience the object before acquiring knowledge about it. One must only recall and recollect whatever he has in mind about the object. Knowledge, thus, for Plato, is embedded in the mind even before we were born. Moreover, he distinguished the world of ideas from the world of matter. The world of ideas provides knowledge, whereas the world of matter provides only opinion. Hence, in Plato experience or perception is not essential in acquiring knowledge. On the other channel, Aristotle considers experience or perception as primary in the acquisition of knowledge. He believes that knowledge is generated by experience. This means: One has to experience the object first before he could have knowledge about it. This is the reason why Aristotle focused on the natural sciences rather than speculative sciences. This debate has recurred in the modern period of western philosophy. This time on a higher plane. The players of this debate are the proponents of two battling schools of thought: The Rationalism and The Empiricism. In the most general level, this modern debate is just a refashioned Plato-Aristotle debate. The names Rene Descartes, Benedict’Baruch’Spinoza and Gottfried Von Liebniz were the leading figures that advocated rationalism. They share the opinion of Plato that knowledge has originated from reason (ideas) which is innate. John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were the ones who put forward the British Empiricism (the diametrical opposite of Rationalism). For empiricists, Knowledge is generated by ideas which arise from perception. The tabula rasa, which Locke is known for, illustrates this argument. When we were born, the mind just blank sheet and nothing is printed on it. As we grow older, our perception continuously accumulates material data which are registered on the blank sheet. Hence, we acquire knowledge from experience. It is clear that they just refashioned the argument of Aristotle. In the late 19th century, Immanuel Kant, a German Philosopher, synthesized the two opposing schools. For Kant, Rationalists are partially right in saying that knowledge is innate. Kant has a parallel observation to the argument of Empiricists. There is no conflict at all. This is because there are knowledge which are innate (apriori) and there are also knowledge which are acquired after experience (a posteriori). Is there certainty in Human Knowledge? There are two movements that debated over this issue: The Relavists and The Absolutists. The Absolutists believe that there is an Absolute Truth where particular instances yield to. By extension, absolutists assume that there is certainty in human knowledge. On the other hand, Relativists claim that there is no absolute truth; truth is always relative; and knowledge is uncertain. What are the different ways to verify the certainty of human knowledge? This issue is also a question of validity of human knowledge. In philosophy, there are some criteria which more or less can measure our knowledge as either true or false. (1) The Correspondence Theory, which maintains that truth is what conforms or corresponds to facts or agrees with objective reality. (2) Coherence Theory is another. This is usually known as consistency. A judgment is true if it is consistent with other judgments which are granted to be true. (3) Pragmatic Theory is also use to verify certainty. For this theory, knowledge is certain and true when it is put to use in struggle for survival. There are still other theories or ways to verify certainty but of less worth. Is knowledge best in whole parts? Little John’s illustration on this issue is quite enough. He emphatically states: “Gestalt school of thought teaches that true knowledge consist of general and indivisible understandings. They believe that phenomena are highly interrelated and operate as a system. Analysts, on the other hand, believe that knowledge consists of understanding how parts operate separately.”

To what extent is knowledge explicit? This issue speaks of two knowledge: the tacit and the explicit. States Little John: “Many philosophers and scholars believe that you cannot know something unless you can express it. Knowledge is thus seen as explicit. Others claim that mush of knowledge is hidden, that people operate on the basis of sensibilities that are not conscious and that they may be unable to express. Such knowledge is said to be tacit.”

I believe the gentleman to whom you refer is properly known as S.W. Littlejohn and the work to which you refer is his Theories of Communication. HERE is a course taught by Lyle Flint of Ball State that attempts to address some of the issues in your article.

I remain a touch skeptical about this essentially postmodern attempt to put window-dressing on undergraduate-level philosophy, and I am both philosophically and politically very much in opposition to Dr. Lyle's interpretation, but I think that you might find it interesting nonetheless. Thanks and have a nice evening, and welcome to FR.

I abide blasé so I'm inveigled to scrawl and scratch approximately something... what? Well, perchance not a ‘what' but a ‘why.' Why queries are commonly the ill. They commence out portentous except undergo besieged in every heading by legions of rejoinders. Everybody covets to notify you why. They stockpile stark sorts of erudition of art that they pickle employ to divulge you why. Why this, why that, why not this, why not that... and so it departs. Why cross-examinations devise these Lilliputian abysses within the passageway of confabulation. They insinuate at manufacturing something, pump up the cogent breach with connotation, routing and subjugating the lunatic to the distant reaches of the biosphere. The why query undergoes a pressure derriere it. It is attentive to surmount the spear of light. Zilch else exceedingly executes it that manner. The why query chaperons you forth into the desert and you encounter the apostate, every incoherent Sufi and augur that wheedles your intelligence with phantasm of art & philosophy. The why is the luminary that perforates the mortal china chest and divulges the pall at the bowel of existence. It singes out the antipodes and deodorizes the grey lesions of epoch. The why query is a crusade (ion). A quest i (am) on, a quest indeed... So, presently you abide blasé as well, I ought solicit my why query.

The Admiral Long John breathes a exalted maestro with multitudinous acolytes. He is eminence for his euphony and abides an boost to his ventilators. His cunning is the air of the hereafter fair albeit the present day fares not digest him. Save we be adequate. He resolve persevere to be lifted as a champion of prodigious delicacy, waggery and with the swell of entity of Orson Welles. A garrison with a commission to smear the illumination that Jehovah relinquished him with endowment, hypnotize and momentous well-behaved countenances and garb. A Don of the preeminent echelon and prominence

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.