According to the belief in the possibility of knowing

• Dogmatism
• Skepticism
• Subjectivism and relativism
• Pragmatism
• Criticism or critical thinking

According to your confidence in the origin of knowledge:

• Rationalism
• Empiricism
• Intellectualism (experience and thought)
• The a priori
• Pre-Metaphysical Solutions: Objectivism and Subjectivism
• Metaphysical Solutions: Realism, Idealism, Materialism, and Phenomenalism
• Theological Solutions: Monism and Theistic Dualism
• Structuralism and poststructuralism

According to the Standford Encyclopedia:

• Perceptual
• Introspection
• Memory
• Reason
• Testimonials

According to Oxford Manual of Epistemology:

El internalism it is the thesis that no fact about the world can provide reasons for action regardless of wishes and beliefs.

• Foundationalism: It is the position that defends that there are things that are justified without the need to justify themselves by their relationship with something else. This foundationalism can be more or less radical according to the trust of this thing that if it justifies “in itself”.
• Reliability: A widely reliabilistic theory of knowledge is roughly the following: It is known that p (p represents any proposition, for example, that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, it is believed that p is true and it has been arrived at the belief that you go through some reliable process.
• Epistemology of virtue: Knowledge occurs if we have adequate intellectual virtues that allow us to achieve or approach it.

El externalism It is the thesis that reasons must be identified with objective characteristics of the world.

• Coherentism: This point of view implies that the justification of any belief depends on that belief having probative support from some other belief through coherence relationships such as linking or explanatory relationships. An influential contemporary version of epistemic coherentism asserts that evidential coherence relationships between beliefs are typically explanatory relationships. The general idea is that a belief is justified to you as long as it explains better, or is better explained by some member of the belief system that has the maximum explanatory power for you. Contemporary epistemic coherentism is holistic; find the ultimate source of justification in an interconnected belief system or potential beliefs.
• Contextualism: Contextualism describes a collection of viewpoints in philosophy that emphasize the context in which an action, statement, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, statement, or expression can only be understood in relation to that context. Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts such as "what P means", "know that P", "have a reason for A" and possibly even "be true" or "be right" only have meaning in relation to a specific context. Some philosophers argue that dependence on context can lead to relativism; however, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy.
• Naturalism: The term naturalism (from the Latin naturalis) is used to name the philosophical currents that consider nature as the sole principle of everything that is real. It is a philosophical and belief system that holds that there is nothing but nature, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences; These exist in order to understand our physical environment.

Pragmatism: Replacement pragmatism asserts the futility and dispensability of philosophical concerns about how the world really is (and about objective truth) and recommends the central philosophical importance of what is profitable, advantageous, or useful. Since useful beliefs can be false and therefore do not represent what the world really is like, the desire for useful beliefs is not automatically a desire for beliefs that represent what the world really is like. Replacement pragmatism implies that a proposition is acceptable to us if and only if it is not. Useful, that is, it is useful for us to accept the proposition. 

The Sapiens methodology presents a remarkable closeness to critical thinking. Both positions start from the need to question the status quo and do so from the disagreement with what we are told is reality and knowledge. To satisfy this disagreement, both are equipped with tools that allow them to go beyond what is known, generating new cognitive content.

Sapiens' first disagreement comes from his belief that everything is connected and, therefore, we cannot know a thing from a single prism (as is instilled in today's society of specialization) but it is necessary to understand things from a holistic perspective . The second disagreement for which he applies critical thinking is one of the most serious problems in today's society: post-truth and infoxication. Sapiens was born in this way to offer a tool that facilitates the understanding of people, distancing them from a simplistic vision of their object of study and the world in general.

We can thus understand that Sapiens draws on both systems theory and critical thinking, since it uses the first to give way to the second. In other words, Sapiens seeks to increase our understanding of reality without accepting what is given by our context (same motivation as critical thinking) and for this, it proposes five methods that allow us an approach towards the knowledge of the object of study in relation to the rest of the objects, belonging to your system and to other systems (systems theory).

After having carried out a study on critical thinking, we can summarize that the Sapiens methodology relies on this type of thinking (and capacity) in the following aspects:

• Both start from the same motivation: distrust of information and knowledge, ambition to get closer to the truth / understanding.
• Their position is at the other extreme of dogmas, as they seek to end them.
• Both proposals consider it essential to ask oneself about the person who knows through self-analysis.
• Both have a practical purpose, seeking to solve problems, contradictions and act better.

From this synthesis of the similarities and differences we can conclude by saying that Sapiens methodology and critical thinking are complementary, since they occupy different cognitive aspects and face the same concern: understanding things well to act free from dogmas.

Critical thinking leads us in turn to pragmatism, a philosophical theory according to which the only way to judge the truth of a moral, social, religious or scientific doctrine is to consider its practical effects.

Because Sapiens seeks to help, guide and guide SMEs and people in their way of understanding their object of study and, since their concern is to improve society by being useful with their methodology, we can observe a closeness with the pragmatic philosophy.

Theory and method that is based on the analysis of human facts as structures susceptible to formalization.

When investigating the object, structuralism presupposes the advance from the primary organization of the observable facts in the framework of the research task towards the clarification and description of the internal structure of the object (its hierarchy and connections between the elements of each level) and , then, towards the creation of the theoretical model of the object.

Sapiens shows analogies with this method in that it pays great attention to the relationship between the parts of the structure in order to define them and, in this process, tries to order the components of the parts and of the structure into taxonomies.

Theory and method that is based on the analysis of human facts as structures susceptible to formalization.

When investigating the object, structuralism presupposes the advance from the primary organization of the observable facts in the framework of the research task towards the clarification and description of the internal structure of the object (its hierarchy and connections between the elements of each level) and , then, towards the creation of the theoretical model of the object.

Sapiens shows analogies with this method in that it pays great attention to the relationship between the parts of the structure in order to define them and, in this process, tries to order the components of the parts and of the structure into taxonomies.

Post-structuralism is a current of French thought that emerged in the second half of the XNUMXth century and is generally included in postmodernism. It accepts that everything we can know is built through signs, but it ensures that there are no intrinsic meanings, but that all meaning is textual and intertextual.

(From Sapiens): Post-structuralism seeks an ordering of knowledge in a fragmented way in phases and layers. Sapiens also seeks a similar ordering. With regard to concrete methods, the deconstruction that poststructuralism initially proposes for texts, elBullirestaurante has already transferred it to the kitchen. With Sapiens the same idea is incorporated for the research methodology. It is about fragmenting not only texts, but also concepts, but to finally analyze them as a whole.

Systems thinking is a mode of analysis that assesses all the interrelated parts that in turn make up a situation to achieve greater awareness of the events and why.

Through systems thinking, all parts of a whole are studied. It is a type of thinking that is usually applied in scientific studies, engineering and business administration, among others, as a method by which a problem or situation can be solved.

The systems theory on which Sapiens relies, together with structuralism, are two currents that coincide in a good part of their contents. For the question that concerns us (confidence in the knowledge of Sapiens) we can define that both structuralism and systems theory consider that knowledge is produced as a result of the particularities of each structure or system.

Sapiens' position is cautious with regard to the confidence given to knowledge, but without falling into a denial or relativism of it. For Sapiens, knowledge will be different in each area (systems) and in turn, as everything is connected and affected by the rest of the parts, knowledge of each area will affect the other parts of that area, as well as those included in others. domains of the megasystem.

Sapiens presents knowledge as different according to the prism, that is, each person will be able to develop according to their context and condition a different knowledge about the same thing. There is an acceptance that knowledge is divided into different prisms and, therefore, we will have to approach it from the connection of the parts and prisms.

That is, Sapiens believes that, although there are different prisms of perceiving reality, knowledge is not limited to the truth of the subject who knows, but precisely the connection of these different prisms can approximate a greater truth (although not absolute ).

Understanding as a source of knowledge from the connection of knowledge and information (which we consider true or reliable) is the coherent justification. This trend has been and can be criticized based on the isolation objection, which we could summarize as follows: the connection of knowledge to generate other knowledge can generate a lot of content that does not have a true justification. Example: if I believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth as was believed several centuries ago, and from here I build the image of the universe from connecting knowledge, I would be building a cognitive fiction far from reality.

To overcome this, Sapiens must accept and declare (as it already does) that its field of study is neither scientific nor philosophical, although it relies on these fields of knowledge. For this reason, its objective is to help understand to act better, without getting into epistemological debates about the origin of justification. That is, it maintains coherence by accepting more than rigorous budgets (everything is connected, holistic vision, knowledge can be understood, etc.) that avoids being criticized in its entirety.

Sapiens' position is more cognitively humble than the great philosophical theories, and he is content to accept that context dictates the meaning of words (an argument strongly supported by philosophy). This contextualism can be described as "relativistic", since perhaps it can be misinterpreted to say that by pointing out that a tomato is different for a farmer than, for an economist, it makes us doubt that a tomato exists.

But this criticism does not do justice to Sapiens, which goes beyond this and that precisely from its humility considers that there is knowledge, that it can be understood if we take into account the different prisms, and that all this has a meaning: the best performance thanks to holistic understanding.

There will always be those skeptics who may doubt Sapiens, since they will doubt that new knowledge can be generated from the connection, or they will doubt the validity of the methods. But these criticisms should not occupy our time since the humility in the positions of Sapiens that we have indicated previously allows us that the disputes with this type of people are won: knowledge as a connection is widely accepted, as is the reliability of the methods. . It would only remain to answer the following criticism: How do you show that these five methods complement each other well? The pragmatic answer is easy: Try yourself and enjoy the easy understanding achieved thanks to the methodology!