Theory Mapping and Epistemology

f
There is a debate within epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) about how claims and beliefs are ultimately justified as true. One view (Foundationalism) says that beliefs are justified within belief systems structured like houses in which everything is grounded upon foundational beliefs that are based on either facts or self-evident truths. The other view (Coherentism) says that beliefs are justified within belief systems structured like spiders webs in which all beliefs depend on each other and justification comes from the coherence of the system as a whole. This debate is mirrored by one within Christian theology between Evidentialists who believe that Christianity can be justified by objective analysis of the evidence, and Presuppositionalists, who believe that Christianity can be justified by how coherent it is as a world view.

I believe that as with most things, the truth is mixture of both approaches. Although belief systems can best be seen as spiders webs, just like spiders webs they have to have external reference points to fix themselves onto, which are facts. A web is stronger (and a belief system more justified as true) not only from being tightly knitted (internally coherent) but also from being fitted to many reference points (fitting the most facts). The test of the truth used in Theory Mapping (coherent explanation of facts) therefore takes both of these aspects into account.

However, the key contribution of Theory Mapping to epistemology is to enable practical research to help to resolve this debate. As I am currently aware, the debate between Foundationlism and Coherentism is largely carried out through hypothetical speculations about belief systems, rather than actually mapping out actual belief systems and seeing what the structure is. Theory Mapping is the ideal tool for doing this mapping out, allowing complex theories to be mapped out, revealing their inner structure.

The structure of Argument Maps assumes that Foundationalism is true, since Arguments Maps follow a strict hierarchical structure where arguments are grounded on evidence. Theory Mapping also incorporates insights from Coherentism in that:

• It is accepted that there can be multiple interpretations of Agreed Facts, and so just because an argument is logical and supported by a fact does not 'prove' it to be true.
• Interlocking aspects of belief systems are allowed for, since if there are certain beliefs/premises that serve a systemic role in justifying a number of arguments, this is clearly shown on the map (see Ability to map complex theories).

As experience is gained from Theory Mapping about the structure of theories, and software is improved, it may be that even better ways can be developed for presenting maps e.g. where the software automatically structures the map to fit the structure of the theory.
f
f