To know that we know: A presentation of Ingham and Luft’s theory. I wish to discuss whether this could be described as “meta-epistemology”, or “epistemology of epistemology”.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Epistemology of epistemology is the theory of the theory of knowledge. So knowledge about knowledge about knowledge. Which is knowledge about knowledge – which is just straight up epistemology. You only get lost in the weeds in this way, the weeds of thinking the epistemology of some particular kind of knowledge is differemt from the epistemology of some other kind of knowledge, if you don’t understand epistemology in the first place.


One must either know the term epistemology, or they just do not understand its meaning to create orders of distinction where none was merited.


It was an interesting article. What’s the difference between meta epistemology and epistemology of epistemology? The theory (or the description of the theory) doesn’t explain how the knowledge can be confirmed, it only categorizes the states of knowledge.


I’ve always wondered at the philosophical or psychological implications of a 4th position in terms of knowledge, as it relates to Rumsfeld’s quote: > Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. Can anyone point me to the texts in which Slavoj Zizek discusses the “unknown knowns”?


Did these theorists give any credit to Socrates for the notion of unknown unknowns? This topic famously begins with him!