An African-American Epistemology

Why an African-American Epistemology? Are there features of an African-American epistemology that are different or additive to traditional Epistemology? Technically, epistemology, the study of theories of knowledge should eliminate falsehood. In a more general sense, knowledge is purposeful in that it helps us to take advantage of the resources that are in our universe to have meaningful lives. The traditional analysis of knowledge is fundamentally analytical. However, embedded within an African-American epistemology, one finds constructs, concepts, ideologies are draw from themes in continental philosophy. Knowledge is definitely utilitarian, but an African-American can be other-purpose driven

The standard view of knowledge is derived from the things that we know from the following primary sources of knowledge: reasoning/inference and rational insight; perception and sensation, i.e., external things; memory; testimony, i.e., witness; and introspection, i.e., internal states. Feldman acknowledges that the list is not complete because epistemologists believe that some sources are controversial, such as, religious/mystical insight and extrasensory perception. Science, though highly regarded, is not on the list because it is thought to be a combination of the standard sources of knowledge. Other controversial sources are revelation, intuition, instinct, experience, observation and inspiration. This list is not exhaustive.

The metaphysical question has to be asked, then, what is truth? We acknowledge that there are universal truths in the universe that the hard sciences, such as math, chemistry, physics, etc., have discovered. These objective truths are universal. Other truths that we must acknowledge are both are subjective and contextual. Nonetheless, they are also rational and experiential. We must consider that what is true for one person may not be necessarily true for another; and what is true for one group, e.g. African-Americans, may not necessarily be true for another group.

Epistemology, i.e., theories of knowledge, has a narrow and broad definition, i.e. a strict and a more comprehensive definition, respectively. Scientists, who believe that a strict methodology is needed to justify true beliefs, rely on the traditional analysis of knowledge (TAK). Recently, epistemology has expanded its horizon to consider combining several academic disciplines, when solving a problem is better resolved with such an undertaking. This interdisciplinary study is more often found in the academic areas of investigation. With this broadened aspect of interdisciplinary epistemology, minority groups, e.g., feminist and Indian, have seized the opportunities to make specific claims that have not been previously acknowledged by traditional study epistemology. The traditional analysis of knowledge has been very strict and exclusive of other ways of knowing that can be justified.

The standard view of knowledge is derived from the things that we know. The primary or standard sources of knowledge are reasoning/inference, rational insight; perception, sensation, memory, testimony, witness, introspection and a few other categories. Feldman acknowledges that the list is not complete, because epistemologists believe that some sources are controversial, such as, religious/mystical insight and extrasensory perception. Science, though highly regarded, is not on the list because it is thought to be a combination of some of the standard sources of knowledge. Other controversial sources are revelation, intuition, instinct, experience, observation and inspiration. This list is not exhaustive.

Some knowledge is esoteric and not available to everyone. It is only shared by those who can understand the logical sequence of premises and conclusions that epistemologists utilize. Some persons have a particular circuiting of the brain that permits understanding of truly difficult and abstract concepts that large portions of the population will never grasp, e.g. astro-physics and aeronautical engineering. These groups will never be able to make the traditional analyses to make the determinations needed to justify knowledge. Unfortunately, some knowledge is socially constructed (or obstructed) with a utilitarian purpose to further disadvantage minority groups. The dominant culture has kept certain knowledge from disadvantaged groups to maintain the status quo. This seems nefarious, but in fact, is a reality that is perceived by many.  A strict epistemologist would say that social construction or obstruction of knowledge has nothing to do with the justifying of true beliefs. I do not desire to defend my position on that issue, but rather this paper will offer other sources of knowledge that African-Americans and other minority groups have found to be meaningful and useful in our lives.

Humans are the only beings with the unique ability to reason, think, make inferences, deductions, inductions, etc. These are our greatest sources of knowledge. Information that we learn and know is in our memory and we can recall it when and if needed. We have knowledge from our senses because of the things that we see, hear, taste, feel and smell. We often rely on the testimony of others to things that we have witnessed in the past or present. Living through an experience and being able to relate it to others is a testimony or a form of witness. Introspection is mental self-observation; and knowledge from this source may be controversial, but should not be denied. Feldman lists religion as one of the standard categories of things that we know, i.e., God exists and He loves me. We may doubt this knowledge because the justification is quite difficult.

Even within the ranks of the traditional analyses of knowledge, there is controversy. Edmund Gettier, renowned epistemologist, issued counter examples of the traditional analysis of knowledge (TAK). His question was, is justified true belief always knowledge? He presented examples of cases where justified true belief is not always knowledge. He demonstrated that there are times when we are deceived by chance knowledge, senses or cognitive abilities. He says that we are much too stiff and haven’t gone far enough. It is not enough if you only have true belief. Others suggest that there are two views of knowledge: evidentialist, non-evidentialist.  The evidentialist or internalist believes that if the evidence is inside of me, it is then justified. For the non-evidentialist or externalist, internal accessibility is not necessary. This knowledge comes about as a result of reliability, perception, causality, truth tracking or proper functioning.

While the standard view of knowledge states that we can know many things, the skeptical view rejects the standard view and states that we know nothing and that it conflicts with common sense. Fallibilism is a prominent reply to the arguments of skepticism with the assumption that knowledge requires absolute certainty. Skeptics place the standards too high on knowledge and the demands are great. Skeptics also reject infinitism, which considers an infinite regression for justification. The view is that if A is justified by B, B by C and so forth, the chain can end in two ways: the chain ends with a link that requires on justification, the chain is circular, showing justification through coherentism or the beliefs are not justified. We can be certain that skepticism was not the mood of the African-American slave, but rather a belief, will and knowledge in something that liberation was possible. There are certain claims to knowledge, a part of the standard views, that should not be included. There are three ways in which knowledge can fail, no belief possible; nothing to believe (metaphysics) and no way to justify (epistemologists are here). The goals of epistemology are to gain knowledge, understanding and wisdom and knowledge. Opinions, guesses and hunches are not to be thought of as knowledge.

           

Many African-Americans are enamored with testimony as a source of knowledge. At the age of 12, I learned how to testify in church. For decades, perhaps centuries, many Black churches have testimony service. This service is a part of the regular worship service where the members or visitors will spontaneously stand up and testify to the goodness of the Lord and their experiences. Often the experiences are very personal and are stories of hardships, blessings and faith. Many of these testimonies are ones, which tell of overcoming some problem or obstacle. Others listen intently and often are able to relate to the experience. Often, someone would testify for fifteen minutes. If the church were full, the worship leader would ask for popcorn testimonies meaning; get up, talk briefly and sit back down, with the intent purpose of getting in as many testimonies as possible. Often, people have been prodded to testify if the service was moving too slowly. When the minister arises, he or she often acknowledges the truly inspiring testimonies and admonish the congregation to take heed and learn. This part of the service is inspired by John in the Book of Revelation! 2:11, “and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony…”. It is literally translated, “we overcome by our testimonies”. At the end of the worship service, it is often that someone will say, “I was blessed with your testimony”.

The African-American slave was forbidden to learn how to read and write; therefore, testimony became his primary source of knowledge. To this day, there is a testimony service in many Black churches where the members continue to testify about their lives. The members receive this knowledge and are encouraged to believe the possibilities for their lives. Testimony is still a reliable source of information for African-Americans as many opportunities are kept from us, because of lack of information or the unavailability of it. African-Americans rely on the testimony of those in the community, especially when such testimonies are given within a particular social setting such as the church. Lackey asserts that the three competing views of testimony are either too restrictive or too loose and offers a disjunctive view that offers how testimony should be viewed.

She first attacks the problem of the statement. Coady and Graham, in the narrow and moderate view believe a speaker testifies by making some statement p. Sosa requires that it be a statement of someone’s thoughts or beliefs. Audi’s testimony is saying or affirming something and Fricker’s testimony is that of “telling”. She asserts that a statement does not necessarily have to be verbal, but information can be conveyed in other forms such as nodding, winking, clapping, snapping, etc. According to Lackey, the three conditions of the standard formula do not have to be met; (1), whether there is a

reliable testifier to be an epistemically good source of belief; (2), testimony can be a source of belief or knowledge for a hearer, regardless of the speaker’s intention to be an epistemic source; and (3), a speaker can testify, regardless of the epistemic needs of the hearer. The moderate view offered by Peter Graham is probably the best paradigm for testimony, but the disjunctive view is probably better. Graham does not require that the statement in question be potential evidence. 

In the NVNT AND MVNT, testimony is an intentional act on the part of the speaker (does not cover posthumous). In these two views, one offers evidence, while the disjunctive view conveys information. The speaker offers statement as evidence that p and non-informational remarks fail to qualify as instances of testimony. In Lackey’s disjunctive view, there is speaker and hearer testimony and an act of communication. The speaker intends to express communicable content rather than communicating to others. It is a concept of conveying information. It is the act of communication being offered as conveying the information comprising some proposition. The hearer testimony does not require any such intention on the part of the speaker. Testimony can serve as a source of belief or knowledge for others regardless of the testifiers’ intention to be such an epistemic source. I theorize that non-informational remarks accepted by the slaves were still worthy of information for reasons that may not have resulted in advancing one’s knowledge base.

It is worth mentioning that there is dialogue about the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. Let me first say that as a child, my mother taught her children about heart knowledge and the faith that we need to put in it for direction and inspiration. The saying goes, “trust your heart for the heart has a reason of its own”. Philosophers would never submit to a reasoning heart because the heart is about sensations and feelings. African-Americans have long relied on their hearts for knowledge and direction.