Epsitemology Now By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd., Esq., Coif Perpetual Copyright (2011C.E.) by Anthony J.

Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C., and The American People and The People of God, as a Public Domain Copyright. Epistemology is that Academic Discipline which is concerned with the issue of how it is that we know things or ideas, etc. Typically, epistemologies are either intuitionist, or idealist or realist or materialist. What I have found is that the most adequate epistemology is consistent with Cognitive Psychology or Psychology of Consciousness, and is essentially, Idealist Realism, also known as Critical Realism or Critical Thomism, which will be referred to as Critical Thomism, from this point onward. Now, we will start from this point with sense experience. Althought, it must be admitted that sensory illusions exist, it is also true that we are not aiming at absolute truth, but instead relative truth or probable truth, so that it does not negatively affect the argument presented here to start with sense experience, even though sense experience is not an absolute. Moreover, the type of sense experience referred to here, is a kind of sense experience that is fairly ordinary and probably real.

So, go to your kitchen, or the grocery store and get an Apple. Once you have an Apple, sit down in a comfortable chair and place the Apple in your left hand. Once the Apple is in your left hand, you see with sense experience that there is an Apple in your left hand. Then, take that Apple out of your left hand and place it on your lap. Then put the Apple back in your left hand. At this point, you can see and feel with sense experience that there is an (A)pple in your left hand. You then take the (A)pple out of your left hand and once again place it on your lap. At this point you can see and feel with sense experience that either there is an (A)pple in your left hand, or there is no(t) (A)pple in your left hand. Thus, you have proven with concrete logic, employing firs hand sense experience, that it is concretely true that either there is (A)pple or no(t) (A)pple, at the same time and in the same place in the material universe. This establishes the concrete logic rule of concrete non-contradiction, that is, a thing cannot both be, and not be, at the same time and in the same place. Not even God himself can accomplish this. Once we have established the validity, or at least probable validity of concrete logic, we can then take this fact and theory and use it to prove the validity of analytic logic. Thus, instead of an (A)pple, we can use a carved, wood block, letter A for our sense experience experiment. Thus, it is

apparent that a person cannot have a concrete wood block, letter A in his or her or hae, left hand, at and in the same time and in the same place, as no concrete wood block letter A. Thus, either a person has a concrete wood block letter A in the left hand, or a person does not. Accordingly, it is probably true that the principle of non-contradiction provides that you cannot have both a concrete wood block letter A and no(t) concrete wood block letter A, at and in the same time and in the same place. By analogy, then, it is clear that the principle of non-contradiction provides that you cannot have an ideal letter A and no(t) letter A, at and in the same time and in the same place. Put another way, you cannot have (A) and (not A) in the at the same time, in the same argument, statement, proof, or idea, or text. Now, the foregoing can be used to prove the validity of Logic. Logic is defined as that which is not illogical. And, that which is illogical is defined as that which involves a logical contradiction, such as, attempting to assert that it is possible to have (A) and (not A) at and in the same time and in the same place. Moreover, that statement, proof, argument, text, or action which is based upon a logical contradiction, is considered fallacious, or fraud, or illegal, or sophistry. Logic outlaws sophistry. Now, it term of practical logic, or reason, it is apparent that if a person is going to engage in a rational, logic argument or proof, that such an argument

or proof must start with reasonable assumptions or postulates to be valid. Practical Logic, ordinarily starts with reasonable factual assumptions. But, how do we know what these might be? Analogous to the scientific method, based upon the work of Bernard Lonergan, it has been proven that you can make reasonable or probable judgments of fact, using the Cognitional Process Structure of: Experience, Understanding, Judgment and Reflection. Experience takes a phenomenological approach which attempts to bracket any meaning category preconceptions, and let experience speak for itself (Husserl). Thus, experience includes a persons sense experience of taste, smell, feeling, touch, hearing, and sight. However, experience also includes a persons internal experience, such as, intuition, imagination, thoughts, feelings, memory, ideas, etc. Sense experience, alone, is not enough because such an approach leads to logical contradictions. For example, if one were to limit experience to sense experience, does this allow as sense experience anything that the person has read in a book, or heard in a lecture by a professor? If not, then we could not consider anything at all that involves language, such as anything which has been written in a book of science, math, philosophy, theology, a novel, ethics, morality, a play, etc. On the other hand, if such information is included, then it clear we can include discussions of Ethics, God and Spirituality, etc, as sense

experience. Additionally, it is possible to prove the Existence of God with Logical Proofs, starting with sense experience. Following the proofs of Aristotle and Thomas Aquainas, you can prove the Existence of God as a First Cause, Uncaused Cause, and or, an Unmoved Mover, by using the example of billiard balls, hitting each other on a billiard table. Using sense experience, you can see that causality exists when on billiard ball moves and hits and causes to move, another billiard ball. From this it can be seen that causality exists and operates in the Material Universe. Since an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible in a finite universe, it is proven that instead, there must be a First Cause, Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, who is God, otherwise, logically, the Universe could not exist. Therefore, starting with experience, we can then move to understand that experience by categorizing the data of experience as well as ideas, into meaning categories and concepts which then can be compared and contrasted. Also, questions such as: who? what? why? how? and how many? Can be asked and answered. Based upon the foregoing experience and understanding, a person can then ask whether or not a fact exists, which is confirmed by a reasonable or probable judgment of fact. Thus, a person can ask whether or not the data of experience and a persons understanding or ideas, are substantially

analogous or reasonably or probably analogous. In this way the hermeneutic circle (Gadamer) is avoided. Analogical thought processes transcend and confirm probable facts based upon experience and understanding. Given the foregoing, we now have proven the validity of logic and facts. This gives of Midwestern Logical Positivism, which is defined as Experience and Logical Reasoning there from as a way of having probable knowledge. Following the standards of proof used in the legal system, you can see that knowledge is valid at 55% probability for ordinary purposes, (a preponderance of the evidence): at 85% probability for reasonable scientific certainty (proof by clear and convincing evidence); and, at 99.9999999% probability for a virtually unconditioned judgment of fact (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). After considering the foregoing, it is clear that knowledge which is probable knowledge is not only possible, but probable. Moreover, as has been proved elsewhere, the foregoing method of knowing can be positively proven, as stated above, and cannot be disproven. To attempt to disprove the foregoing epistemology and cognitive psychology, one would have to use it, and thus place oneself in a contradiction between statement and performance, which would constitute the sophistry of the fallacy of shifting ground and the fallacy of hypocrisy.

I am challenging anyone to attempt to refute my epistemology and cognitive psychology, stated herein. I assert that such an attempt would involve a practical impossibility and also a theoretical impossibility. My epistemology, asserted and described herein, is irrefutable.