Why "Limits to knowledge" must become a central tenet of epistemology

 “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.” ― Richard P. Feynman

The core and primary reason for the authorship of this article is that practitioners of science do not often bear the concept of limits to knowledge in mind, and there is often a sense of hubris prevalent among practioners of science, most notably in various fields of social sciences, where scholars are ageing, and caught in a Eurocentric mould and warp, along with a high degree of skeptopathy leading to an excessive and unjustified feeling of infallibility. This is often tied to Eurocentrism as well, and our globalization of science movement hopes to yield more capacious interpretations of scientific concepts in the long term, particularly in the social sciences. This is of course not in the interests of science, and we believe that intellectual humility can lead to faster scientific progress, and can light and shine forth the torch of objectivity and rigour. Knowledge may be defined as an awareness, understanding, or information about a subject gained through learning, study, or experience. In philosophy, and it is often described as a justified true belief, which is a epistemological definition of thee term. Epistemology is a field which accomplishes the formal study of knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits in many cases, along with a study of truth propositions. The term epistemology is derived from two Greek words, namely “episteme”, which connotes knowledge, and “logos”, which means a formal field of investigation or study. There are foundational and empirical limits to knowledge, and we will discuss these briefly in this article.

Hubris has accelerated noticeably over the past couple of centuries, particularly after the dawn of the industrial and scientific revolution, torched by genuine and bonafide human achievements and progress. This has become particularly visible in the twentieth century, as technological progress accelerated rapidly. A lot more work need to be done on the limits to knowledge, and the concept must become much more tightly interwoven much more tightly into epistemology itself. We believe that this is a major weakness at present, and one reason for this is that researchers themselves are wary of immersing themselves in this issue. A formal and a comprehensive study of a large number of case studies can become a useful trigger or a starting point, and that is why we discuss a couple of them in this article. As such, we invite a large number of other independent scholars and thinkers to contribute their insights to this vital and crucial, yet sadly neglected field. Epistemology and the philosophy of science also must form a part and parcel of the globalization of science movement as the context of knowledge is studied much more foundationally and deeply, given the fact that much of intellectualism has been birthed and gestated based on the ground realities and experiences of the west. That at least has been our firm and unshakable belief over the past several years

What is knowledge?

Let us begin this article by defining what knowledge is. Knowledge in general terms, may be defined as the awareness, understanding, or information about a subject matter or a particular event (or a course of events that take place over time) that a person gains either through practical experience or practical education. Knowledge therefore encompasses both theoretical and practical understanding of an issue or a matter at hand. In the realm of philosophy, the study of knowledge is referred to epistemology. Therefore, as per the principles of epistemology, knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”. This definition is sometimes attributed to the ancient Greek thinker Plato In the dialogue Theaetetus, though it has been expanded upon, and derived ever since. However, in modern and in contemporary times, Edmund Gettier critiqued this concept, and proposed the Gettier case in this regard. By belief, we mean that the individual or person must believe the proposition to be true. By truth we mean that the belief must be true, and not false. By justification we mean that the individual must have a good reason or valid evidence for the belief, such as experience, memory, or logical reasoning

Knowledge can be categorized into several distinct types and classes. For example, propositional knowledge (or knowledge-that) refers to theoretical knowledge about facts and truths that can be expressed in declarative sentences. On the other hand, procedural knowledge (which is also known as knowledge-how refers to practical skills or abilities. Thirdly, knowledge by acquaintance refers to familiarity with a person, place, or thing gained through direct acquaintance or a rendezvous. Knowledge may also be classified into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is easily articulated, documented, and shared while tacit knowledge (less commonly referred to as implicit knowledge) refers to knowledge that is difficult to formalize, articulate, or share, often gained through extensive personal experience and long and tedious hours of practice. Knowledge is typically acquired through many different means and mechanisms, such as sensory perception, deep-rooted cogitation, reflection, and introspection, long-term and short-term memory, inference, direct and indirect testimony, wisdom, witness, direct experience as in the case of experiential knowledge, and formal education. Knowledge is the very basis and foundation for modern society, and scientific progress. We would all be nothing without it.

What is epistemology?

Epistemology is a very important branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits. The word is thought to originate from the Greek words episteme (which means knowledge) and logos (which means reason or study). This important field of study analyzes how knowledge is acquired and what makes a belief true instead of false. In Epistemology, knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief. In other words, in order to possess knowledge of a proposition, a person must believe it, it must be true, and the person must have adequate justification or a rational reason for holding that belief. The history of epistemology connotes the formalized philosophical study of knowledge production mechanisms across different eras and cultures, beginning from ancient Greek investigations into the nature of truth to more modern comprehensive debates that formally include science, logic, and social and cultural dynamics. The ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, building on Plato’s early ruminations and introspections on the topic of knowledge, emphasized empirical observation and abstraction that was derived from experience.

During the Middle Ages, epistemology probed and investigated the complex and multifaceted relationship between faith and reason with thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas making important contributions. We also then had empirical and rational schools of thought. Rationalism, of logic and reasoning independent of past experience, or experiential knowledge was heavily promoted by thinkers of the likes of Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza in the immediate pre-modern era. On the other hand, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, advocated for empiricism or experiential knowledge. In all probability, the two cannot be mutually exclusive and build upon and complement each other in the manner proposed by Immanuel Kant in his work, critique of pure reason. We would likely do similarly otherwise, and we have also developed concepts such as that of fuzzy logic for the social sciences, and variable logic. Of late, new subfields such as analytic epistemology, naturalized epistemology, and social and formal epistemology, and the field as such remains highly vibrant and ever-evolving to meet the complex needs and requirements of the information age and the digital age, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural insights.

Limits to knowledge

The limits of knowledge as an epistemological concept refers to, and represents the fundamental boundaries of what can be known, fathomed, experienced, or proven by the faculties of the human mind, and by human cognitive processes. These limits are defined by empirical and sensory limits. Empirical limits to knowledge connote the boundaries of what can be known through sensory experience, observation, and scientific experiment. These constraints derive from the innate capacity of human senses such as touch, smell, hearing, sight and visions, etc, and the fact that human beings are able to perceive only a tiny band of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) and a limited range of sound frequencies. Sensory faculties also vary from species to species, and many other animals possess superior sensory abilities, at least in some respects. Humans cannot also perceive and fathom very small and very large objects without the use of external and artificial tools, and their efficacy too is limited by technological constants. Cultural biases, and confirmation biases too shape human worldviews, and scientists are not often spared from subjectivity and bias. Humans also often tend to extrapolate their own cultural conditions to other cultures, and these may lead to fallacious conclusions – That is why we launched our globalization of science movement in the first place. This issue has not been as widely studied, probed, or investigated as it deserves to be, but approaches and attitudes in this connection and regard must change with the times. Human brains must process data and information, and this process is often constrained by subjective filtering. Scientists also do not always evaluate all assumptions for scratch, and operate within pre-defined theoretical (and often non-neutral) frameworks. Thus, misinterpretations and erroneous interpretations of reality multiply as rapidly as valid interpretations. These factors often impede the speed at which knowledge can be acquired. Humans ability for logical reasoning too is not without bounds, as is their ability to comprehend absolute philosophical truths.

Human critical thinking may also often be severely limited by brain capacity, available vocabulary, verbal intelligence, and less frequently social and cultural skills, and the ability to adapt too, and work in multicultural environments. We also then have the problem of induction, and the ability of sentient human beings to derive generalizations from large tomes of data. Humans cannot also make accurate predictions about the future based on existing data due to hindsight bias, and the problem of induction was discussed at length by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, and others. We also have the horizon of events problem, and there are valid cosmological boundaries as well. For example, conditions prior to the Big Bang or the internal subjective experiences of other human beings and other species, remain empirically unverifiable. For example, we cannot possibly know what Emperor Akbar ate on a certain day, or the precise time at which he ate. We also know that cats cannot taste sweet, or that dogs cannot see certain colours, but they are indeed limits to the accuracy and efficacy of experiments that expose or lay bare these facts. Time travel is not possible, and there are physical and cosmological limitations to time travel as well, though people have imagined time travel vividly in the past, most notable examples being HG Wells, Mark Twain, and Enrique Gaspar.

There are several other interesting concepts too. For example many sociologists and social scientists believe that the human being is born with an empty and neutral tabula rasa or a blank slate. However, some rationalists counter this view, stating that the human mind is not a blank slate, but is born with a degree of inherent structures, concepts, or truths that may exist independently of sensory experience, and are determined or derived genetically. Immanuel Kant too wrote about phenomena versus noumena; in other words, reality exists independently outside human perception, and we therefore have two distinct realms: namely phenomena (the world of appearances) and noumena (the world of things as they exist independently of the human mind). Humans may also suffer from overconfidence and hubris. Hubris represents an extreme, and a highly dangerous level of pride, arrogance, and overconfidence that leads to a person’s ultimate downfall. Hubris is not based on a simple miscalculation alone, but involves a mental, moral or cognitive superinflation where an individual believes they are above the rules, laws, or forces of nature. They may be blinded by their own past achievements and accomplishments, real or imagined, individual or cultural. A classic example is that of the archeologist and anthropologist Gregory Possehl, who is now deceased who was highly pompous and naïve in his interaction with the Author. Hubris inevitably and invariably leads to nemesis, and there are many examples from Greek mythology to illustrate this; we have the story of Icarus and Niobe, then the story of Arachne and King Tantalus.

Types of overconfidence include overestimation which is the act of judging one’s actual performance, skill, or other abilities to be higher than what they actually are. We also then have overplacement or the belief that an individual is more capable than others, and over precision – the erroneous and mistaken belief that a person’s observations are much more accurate than they actually are. We also then have the issue of skepticism versus skeptopathy, one that we have discussed at great length in our previous papers. Skepticism is a healthy, evidence-based approach of questioning claims, whereas skeptopathy is a term used to describe a pathological, irrational form of disbelief. There was a great deal of hubris in the early part of the twentieth century too. For example, the Titanic was marketed as being unsinkable. However, complacency led to several engineering blunders such as non water tight bulkheads (open top bulkheads), and a single layered hull on the sides. The steel was thought to be of inferior quality, and the riveting was not properly done. Limits to knowledge as often discussed in epistemological debates, but we believe that the time has now come to integrate it much more tightly with the field so that cardinal errors of omission and commission cannot occur, and so that the quality and reliability of scholarship is also escalated as a result. Examples of limits to knowledge include the mystery of time. How did time originate? How did time begin? How could something not have had a beginning? This is indeed mind-boggling, and shows that something exists that is beyond human conception of time, something that human beings cannot possibly comprehend. Some others talk about a fine tuned universe, and the strong and weak anthropic principle, though many different types of arguments have been proposed, both for and against. Narrow and shallow debates also alienate people, since communication must be both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural. It must also be deep and profound enough to account for practical realities.

The concept of God

The concept and general idea of God has intrigued man for aeons and millennia. Yet the concept of God continues to be ill-defined, and the term often means many different things to many different people, across, and within cultures. Some people speak of a religious God- with often varying and non-overlapping definitions across religions, others speak of a non-religious God, an agnostic, while yet others associate the term God with the sum total of nature; it is perhaps for this very reason that debates surrounding the term God remain highly opinionated and non-objective to this very day, even among academicians and scholars. In many, if not most religions, God is seen as the Supreme Being, creator, and ruler of the universe in monotheistic and polytheistic religions and belief systems. Yet there are religions without the concept of God, and at the same time, there are also people who believe in the pantheistic or natural concept of God without believing in any religion. In Western and Abrahamic views, God is viewed as the creator and ruler of all things, and as the eternal, all-powerful maker of all life and all forms of existence. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is also additionally seen as a personal, loving, and just judge who interacts with humanity. This concept is sometimes seen as a personal God. There are also monotheistic and polytheistic religions. In the case of the formers, there is only one God, while in the case of the latter, there are many or multiple Gods. An example of a polytheistic religion is Hinduism, though some say these are viewed as manifestations of only one God. The definition of God varies in eastern and other non-western perspectives. Many non-traditions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, view the ultimate reality as a formless, all-encompassing cosmic energy or spirit (like Brahman). Many other traditions define gods as multiple supernatural beings controlling specific forces of nature or different aspects of life. We had also discussed several uncommon definitions of the term God in our previous papers and publications. There is also an oversimplified God (Christian) versus evolution debate in certain western intellectual circles which we must deplore and condemn; we had also discussed concepts such as intelligent design, young earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolutionary theism previously on multiple occasions. Readers are requested to read these works.

Additionally and alternatively, Spinoza’s God is the concept that God and the physical universe are exactly the same entity, a philosophy known as pantheism. This idea mostly rejects the idea and concept of a religious God, and can be seen as being religion-neutral. This concept was first developed by the seventeenth century Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, for which he was severely criticized within his own Jewish community. This view by and large rejects the traditional idea of a personalized God who sits in heaven with a long and flowing beard, judges people on the basis of their actions and good or bad deeds, or performs miracles. Other ideas such as that of a horned, mythical creature, spitting and drooling blood, are also highly unscientific, and must be deemed as such. On the other hand, Spinoza argued that God is the infinite, impersonal, and rational system of nature itself, and he called it Deus sive Natura meaning that the terms God and nature could be used interchangeably. This concept also once relied heavily on monism, the idea that everything in the universe could be reduced to one substance.

The reason why this concept must be mentioned at least in passing in this context is that Spinoza’s ideas profoundly shaped the Enlightenment and modern philosophy, and many scientists latter commented on it. Most notable is Albert Einstein’s endorsement of Spinoza’s concept In the early part of the twentieth century. Carl Sagan also viewed this concept favourably, and so did many other scientists, all of whom rejected the traditional idea of God. Paradoxically enough, Richard Dawkins issued a disclaimer stating that the contents of his books did not apply to Spinoza’s definition of God, and Christopher Hitchens touched upon the issue as well. It is difficult to critique Spinoza’s God from a purely epistemological standpoint. However, they have been some religious criticism. However, refer our argument on the mystery of time, and several other arguments put forth in our book discussing the existence of God, both for and existence. Clearly, there are several issues and paradoxes at play, both epistemological and philosophical and naïve and hardnosed approaches may not work; correlate with our observations on the limits to knowledge.

What is atheism?

Atheism as a broad concept refers to the absence of belief in a God, a creator, or a supreme being or entity. A more vulgar manifestation of God is referred to as a deity. People who subscribe to atheism are known as atheists. Atheists reject the belief that any God or deities exist, and believe that man is the sole architect of his destiny. The term “atheism” is derived from the ancient Greek word atheos, meaning “without gods”. There are many types of atheism. One primary classification is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism means not holding a belief in God without explicit or active rejection, while explicit atheism refers to a more assertive form of rejection in any divine being or entity. Atheism may also be sub classified into positive and negative atheism. Negative or weak atheism refers to a mere absence of belief in deities, whereas adherents of positive or strong atheism vehemently and vociferously assert the firm claim that no God exists. The British philosopher John Gray in his 2018 book, “Seven Types of Atheism”, outlined seven distinct categories of atheism. These categories are new atheism which connotes and represents a form of militant and outspoken critique of religion popularized by thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, secular humanism which subscribes to science, reason and ethical naturalism as a tool for societal progress, scientism which turns science into a dogmatic religion used to engineer human advancement and holds an oversized view of the advancement of science, political religion which uses religion as a political tool, atheism with a strange or a paradoxical faith in science, the atheism of God haters as represented by Marquis de Sade or Ivan Karamazov, atheism without progress and atheism with silence.

Atheism without progress is championed by philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and George Santayana who reject both God and the myth of human progress, and hold cynical views of the world. The atheism of silence on the other hand has been propounded by literary figures such as Joseph Conrad, and finds mystery in the universe without needing to provide any meaning to life or to existence. There are other terms too. For example, agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknown or cannot be known. A large number of ordinary people including scientists, intellectuals and philosophers fall into this category. There are many variants of agnosticism, including strong and weak agnosticism. The idea of agnosticism was proposed and championed by thinkers such as Thomas Henry Huxley and Immanuel Kant. Antitheism is a virulent hostility to religion and religious beliefs, with a firm belief that a belief in God or religion is outright dangerous, and impedes human progress. A example of an antitheism is Christopher Hitchens. Pragmatic or apathetic atheism holds the view that the existence or non-existence of gods is irrelevant to daily quotidian life, and is therefore unimportant for the most part. Hemant Mehta and others study the intersection between religion, society, and culture, and there are many different shades and hues of thinkers with many different viewpoints; all this goes on to show that there are many unresolved issues and many dogmatic, ossified, and ideologically driven viewpoints. Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism holds the position that the term “God” is meaningless because it lacks a coherent, testable definition. Proponents of this position hold that that it is futile to discuss whether God exists until a clear definition is provided. We subscribe more or less to this school of thought.

Atheism existed in the ancient world, and in ancient India, the Charvaka school rejected supernatural claims and the doctrine of karma, advocating for materialism alone. In ancient Greece philosophers such as Diagoras of Melos severely criticized religious myths. Epicurus on the other hand, argued that even if gods existed, they were detached and uninvolved in human affairs. During the Islamic golden age, thinkers such as Al-Ma’arri openly criticized religion. During the European dark and middle ages, atheism was associated with heresy and blasphemy, and it was only during the renaissance and enlightenment, that the spirit of inquiry were rekindled and retorched. During this period, open atheism emerged, and some open atheists were Jean Meslier, Baron d’Holbach, and others. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which was published in the middle of the nineteenth century provided a natural explanation for human origins, triggering atheistic ideas in many thinkers. Charles Darwin himself, however, did believe in a Christian God for the most part. Karl Marx went as far as to call religion “the opium of the people, and the sigh of the oppressed creature” while Friedrich Nietzsche famously pronounced God to be dead. State atheism emerged in Communist states which severely curtailed the open practice of religion, with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge even banning it altogether. In the early part of the twenty first century, the new atheism movement emerged, and was championed by Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hitchens, a journalist and social critic, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and a few others. Some of these thinkers even argued that religion was toxic and dangerous, and the root cause of most violence in the world.

The New Atheism movement however faced strident criticism from a wide range of critics, including philosophers, theologians, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and even many secularists. The primary criticisms centered on the movement’s aggressive tone, lack of philosophical depth, cultural naivety, and the adoption of political stances. Many note that proponents of the new atheism movement essentially engage in a Christian centric debate, do not distinguish between God and religion, etc. The idea and notion of God is vague and ambiguous and it is not possible to critique something which has been imprecisely defined; there are many different religions, and some do not subscribe to God at all. Critics such as Michael Ruse, who himself was an agnostic argued that the “Four Horsemen” lacked formal training in theology or philosophy, leading to shallow and over-simplistic arguments. The movement was also widely accused of “scientism”—the dogmatic belief that science is the primary source of truth and knowledge, at the expense of ethics, literature, and metaphysics. We had also argued that religion has personal, societal, political, social and cultural functions in society, and that is impossible to wish religion away with a magic wand, or dismiss it derisively. Centuries of atheistic thought have barely made a dent on religion, and religion continues to hold a sway on billions of people in different parts of the world. Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan also criticized some atheists for being extremely dogmatic, arrogant, and pompously naïve, arguing that absolute certainty about the non-existence of God is yet another form of dogma. Some even argue that dogmatic atheism which represents an absolute belief that God does not exist, along with an unwillingness to consider alternative evidence or arguments, mimics and replicates religious and theological dogma in many ways. Critics allege that some dogmatic atheists even shifts their stance from “I do not believe” to “I actively know God does not exist, and the matter is closed.” This is a form of rigid and dogmatic naivety, mirroring the rigid, unyielding mindset found among many fundamentalist religious groups.

Other related concepts

Reincarnation refers to a philosophical and religious concept that the nonmaterial components of a living being (such as consciousness or a soul) begins a new lifespan in a different physical form or body after biological death. Thus, the soul is immortal, and in some cases, eventually merges with a supreme God or being. Such claims are however mostly untestable, and therefore mostly fall beyond the boundaries of legitimate science. There are varying claims and counter claims made by various religions, and Christianity and Islam reject the concept of reincarnation altogether. Hinduism however, talks about a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is known as samsara, which is driven by karma or action. Hinduism also states that the soul or atman is eternal and it continuously transmigrates through various life forms until it achieves moksha, a state of liberation where the individual soul unifies with the ultimate reality or Brahman. Other religions make different claims, and Buddhism for example, denies the existence of a permanent soul while talking about karma and nirvana at the same time. Sikhism and Jainism on the other hand, derive most of their concepts heavily from Hinduism. Since there are so many claims and counterclaims, everything must be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but formal, neutral, and non-partisan mechanisms must emerge to evaluate such claims. We look forward to more research being carried out in this regard, and new frameworks and paradigms emerging. Universities can play a crucial role here – including Western and American universities simply because they are better equipped at present, and we look forward to a new generation of scholars and researchers emerging.

Some research has already been carried out at the University of Virginia by Dr Ian Stevenson and Dr Jim Tucker, though more and more perspectives may be necessary. Claims made by Shanti Devi of India, James Leininger, and Ryan Hammons of the United States and others have also been investigated. An absolute commitment to the truth must be their motto and mantra, along with what we have always called “objectivity in mindset”. Cross-cultural, dialectical and inter-disciplinary approaches must also be applied wherever necessary. Various outcomes must be borne in mind and welcomed, including the possibility of fraud, (negative results must also be welcomed because they produce salutary lessons for science) and continuous validation and revalidation of results would also be required. Similar to reincarnation, out of body experiences (including near death experiences) have also been claimed (Such as the case of Pam Reynolds who was a famous American singer and song writer) leading to floating sensations, and visual and auditory distortions. However, most mainstream scientists are skeptical of such claims. Even claims made by astrologers, palmists, soothsayers, psychics, numerologists and others deserve to be much more thoroughly probed and investigated. Even if such claims are eventually falsified, they add fundamentally and foundationally to the body of human knowledge by holding out a warning to such practitioners and to society in general. As always, we must bear in mind the fact that many things are unknowable. For example, the question, “At what time did Emperor Akbar eat dinner on a certain day, and what did he eat on that particular day?” are probably unanswerable. Therefore, there are indeed limits to knowledge. We look forward to theoretical and foundational inputs here, by a wide variety of other scholars.

There have also been many psychics throughout the ages. One of them was Edgar Cayce. As an American clairvoyant and mystic who made supernatural claims, he was a foundational figure in the modern New Age movement. He often allegedly went into a trance, answered complex questions, and soon gained a large following. However, criticisms of him abound, and many researchers, including Martin Gardner, are highly skeptical of his claims more so because, Cayce made many claims which ran contrary to established scientific facts including claims of Atlantis and Lemuria. Another highly controversial; figure was Wolf Messing who attained a cult like following in the former Soviet Union as a hypnotist, and self-proclaimed psychic and telepath. Criticisms of Wolf Messing abound, and it is even alleged that his memoirs were ghostwritten by Mikhail Khvastunov, who was a highly controversial and polarizing figure. Other notable and highly controversial figures include Sylvia Browne, a popular author and television guest who also claimed to be a medium, John Edward, another controversial television personage who claimed to be a medium, Jeane Dixon, a famous American astrologer, Uri Geller, a psychic, and many more. Shamans have also routinely claimed to communicate with the dead, and with other spirits, though their claims have not been systematically verified. Many people have claimed to expose paranormal claims, and some such examples have been Harry Houdini who also testified before American Congress against fraudulent claims, Derren Brown who exposed many scams, Joe Nickell, a full time paranormal investigator, Michael Shermer who was the founder of the Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine., Susan Blackmore, Joseph and Sanal Edamaruku of India, Basava Premanand of India, the world-famous and class-leading James Randi and many more. As previously noted, dialectical approaches are required, unbiased investigations are required, and the principle of absolute neutrality. This is because one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. The field of “limits of knowledge” must become a major, vital and dynamic subfield within epistemology, and must be given the attention sand focus that it so richly deserves. Scholars and researchers from all walks of life must participate and contribute to such endeavours. We must also bear in mind the fact that negative outcomes and negative results can richly contribute to epistemological theory, and knowledge of this vital subfield of epistemological theory must be vitally imparted and disseminated to scholars and practitioners of science so that hugely improved and enlarged scientific output can result in many walks of science.