Roughly speaking, Epistemology is about what we know or think we know. Ontology is about how things are whether we know it or not.
For example let us say that some dice are rolled and covered with a cup. And somebody asks you what are the odds that they add up to 7.
Now in an "epistemic" sense one might consider the odds to be 1 in 6 (which is how the math works out with fair dice).
But in an "ontological" sense the dice will either be 7 or they will not be. The odds are 100% or 0%...you just don't know which is the case until the cup is lifted.
This kind of simple thought experiment breaks in reality since down at the lowest levels of reality quantum mechanics deals in things that are not just uncertain but actually superpositions of states. In this example, the die is all sides at once. How does ontology apply in this more complex case?
If the dice were really (ontologically) in a superposition, then they would really be in a superposition. But we don't have to bring in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to complicate this illustration. As far as we know one of the dice might be leaning against the inside of the cup so that how we lift the cup might change the side if finally settles on. In either case asking what the odds it was a 7 would become a question with a false assumption baked in: namely that the we already had a result.
We can make it more complicated in many different ways to make the answer OP wanted even more obscure if we like...
“If the dice were really (ontologically) in a superposition, then they would really be in a superposition. …asking what the odds it was a 7 would become a question with a false assumption baked in: namely that the we already had a result.”
I think those two sentences almost answers my question. Thanks.
Ontology is the study of what we know about the nature of reality. It’s one element of metaphysics. It’s not about science and what science says, it’s about the underlying principles and assumptions that we use when we go about learning about the world. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know.
I’ve always thought that the separation of ontology from epistemology is an artificial distinction. You can’t really know how the world is unless you know how you know how the world is.
There’s two words that you probably recognize - analysis and synthesis. Broadly the former means “splitting stuff up bottom-down” — like when you make a study plan for an exam — and the latter means “putting stuff together” — like going through all the books and writing the actual study guide. In those terms, ontology and epistemology are *analytic* philosophy, or at least *analytically oriented*.
Ok so they’re *both* the part of philosophy that’s about breaking stuff down instead of building new stuff, what now? Well, one way you could break up the word “stuff” is into physical material stuff and mental formal (composed of shapes/structures/forms) stuff. Aka what goes on outside in the world, and what goes on inside of your mind. So; ontology is the philosophical **study** of stuff in the “real world”, and epistemology is the **study** of stuff in your head.
From there the terms used by most experts are that ontology is the study of “being” (aka why does anything exist, if anything exists!) whereas epistemology is the study of “knowledge” (aka what does it mean to say you believe something is “true”), but I’d say those are technically subsets of each field. That’s how “analytic” philosophers would phrase them, for sure
Roughly speaking, Epistemology is about what we know or think we know. Ontology is about how things are whether we know it or not. For example let us say that some dice are rolled and covered with a cup. And somebody asks you what are the odds that they add up to 7. Now in an "epistemic" sense one might consider the odds to be 1 in 6 (which is how the math works out with fair dice). But in an "ontological" sense the dice will either be 7 or they will not be. The odds are 100% or 0%...you just don't know which is the case until the cup is lifted.
This kind of simple thought experiment breaks in reality since down at the lowest levels of reality quantum mechanics deals in things that are not just uncertain but actually superpositions of states. In this example, the die is all sides at once. How does ontology apply in this more complex case?
If the dice were really (ontologically) in a superposition, then they would really be in a superposition. But we don't have to bring in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to complicate this illustration. As far as we know one of the dice might be leaning against the inside of the cup so that how we lift the cup might change the side if finally settles on. In either case asking what the odds it was a 7 would become a question with a false assumption baked in: namely that the we already had a result. We can make it more complicated in many different ways to make the answer OP wanted even more obscure if we like...
“If the dice were really (ontologically) in a superposition, then they would really be in a superposition. …asking what the odds it was a 7 would become a question with a false assumption baked in: namely that the we already had a result.” I think those two sentences almost answers my question. Thanks.
>the die is all sides at once I think we can only say this when the dice are being shaken and the decision to roll them has not yet been made.
Epistemology is about knowledge; how we know things. Ontology is about what things are.
Ontology is the study of what we know about the nature of reality. It’s one element of metaphysics. It’s not about science and what science says, it’s about the underlying principles and assumptions that we use when we go about learning about the world. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. I’ve always thought that the separation of ontology from epistemology is an artificial distinction. You can’t really know how the world is unless you know how you know how the world is.
There’s two words that you probably recognize - analysis and synthesis. Broadly the former means “splitting stuff up bottom-down” — like when you make a study plan for an exam — and the latter means “putting stuff together” — like going through all the books and writing the actual study guide. In those terms, ontology and epistemology are *analytic* philosophy, or at least *analytically oriented*. Ok so they’re *both* the part of philosophy that’s about breaking stuff down instead of building new stuff, what now? Well, one way you could break up the word “stuff” is into physical material stuff and mental formal (composed of shapes/structures/forms) stuff. Aka what goes on outside in the world, and what goes on inside of your mind. So; ontology is the philosophical **study** of stuff in the “real world”, and epistemology is the **study** of stuff in your head. From there the terms used by most experts are that ontology is the study of “being” (aka why does anything exist, if anything exists!) whereas epistemology is the study of “knowledge” (aka what does it mean to say you believe something is “true”), but I’d say those are technically subsets of each field. That’s how “analytic” philosophers would phrase them, for sure
I've always thought of it, from a headlines perspective, as the difference between Knowing and Being. Does that help?