Epistemology, often called the study of knowledge, is a branch of philosophy that covers nature, sources of knowledge, and develops a theory of knowledge. Some sources of knowledge include reason, testimony, and experience.
Despite illustrating their beliefs differently both empiricist philosophers John Locke and David Hume believe that knowledge develops from experience. The importance of knowledge by experience is portrayed in the form of skepticism “Our ideas seem to give a perfect assurance, that no two right lines can have a common segment; but if we consider these ideas, we shall find, that they always suppose a sensible inclination of the two lines, and that where the angle they form is extremely small, we have no standard of a right line so precise, as to assure us of the truth of this proposition” (Hume). David Hume uses geometry to argue that sensory experience may sometimes lack precision, further reflecting his view on knowledge by experience. On the contrary, John Locke introduces a more empiricist viewpoint. In the text Locke critiques the various beliefs “But, which is worse, this argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such: because there are none to which all mankind give an universal assent” (Locke). Beliefs in the universe, and innate principles are highlighted which reinforces Locke’s argument that knowledge derives from experience.
Philosophers David Hume and John Locke compared to my understanding of what it means to have knowledge by experience because having understood the hermeneutic circle, I interpret that one acquires information by observing, practicing, and being present in real situations. However, I also believe that knowledge may be obtained in a variety of ways. It is possible that knowledge is derived from reason, testimony, and experience.
I need to know how to respond to this with two follow up questions?