There are those that may argue that a drug induced state offers no actual 'knowledge'. That some how the experienced gained while in a drug induced state is inferior to experiences gained independently of drug alteration. The grounds by which they dismiss this 'avenue of research' are varied, but those that would make such a distinction would be a knowledge elitist, arguing that some forms of knowledge are superior to other forms. Hence, the term Epistemological Elitism. And one that believes in epistemological elitism is a K-elitist.

I am no K-elitist. I see no possible grounds in which one can dismiss knowledge 'gained' while in a drug induced state. Any such possible argument will lead to application to other domains were other 'kinds' of knowledge could be challenged as legitimate. Besides, the justifications for the criteria will inevitably require some spurious allusion to some moral system that I will obviously reject. Unless its my own of course.

Speaking of which, I believe that their is one type of knowledge superior to all other kinds of knowledge. Knowledge ascertained through a rigorous trial and error investigation that leads to solution of a problem is superior to all other kinds of knowledge. More specifically, superior knowledge consists of groups of experiences attained from applying multiple solutions to a problem until one of the experiences leads to solution of that problem. In this way superior knowledge is not simply the solution, but also all the experience associated to the trail and error process that leads to the solution. The more experience one attains while attempting to solve a problem the more superior their knowledge becomes because they will be more likely to reliably solve sets of problem related to the initial problem.

Effectively, superior knowledge enables better control over one's environment and the more reliable their control is in any given domain the more superior their knowledge in that domain (1) becomes. Repeated attempts at solving a complex problem inevitably lead too a thorough understanding of the domain in which the problem resides. This only further makes the knowledge more superior than the knowledge gained not through the application of this same kind of trial and error process. Hence a solution gained through communication is inferior to knowledge gained by experimentation. Ultimately, through sustained trial and error, the knowledge develops thoroughly granting complete control over said domain and making the knowledge supreme of that domain. One with this supreme knowledge is a knowledge elitist of that domain.

So then is the drug user's knowledge inferior to the K-elitist according to my definition of 'knowledge'? It should be rather obvious that in one sense she has no knowledge and in another sense she does have knowledge. The drug user becomes very skilled at using drugs to avoid situations and enhance others. They become acutely aware of the affect of dosage and context on overall phenomenological experience. In this sense, they most certainly can be considered knowledgeable and superior to any individual that does not have these kinds of experimental knowledge.

However under this same criteria of 'knowledge' we see that drug users do not have superior knowledge. Passive reception of mind alteration does not lead to sustained problem solving experiences and in fact it can be argued that the aim of drug use is to avoid such endeavors. In this sense, mind alteration does not lead to superior knowledge. It's simply a passing event that has no actionable information contained within it. In this sense the scientist's knowledge of deriving the formula for cocaine is superior to the drug user knowledge of the 'high' of cocaine.

But, interestingly enough, and which I have no qualms with, is the consequence of whole bunch of things that we regard as 'knowledge'. On a logical level justified true belief is no longer absolutely guarantee of knowledge. Although, its obvious in this case, that the justification effectively is the empirical caveat that attempts to satisfy my trial and error requirement, it is not strong enough. Because one can justifiably believe something without the trial and error that is required for it to be 'knowledge' and yet lack the experimental experience associated with it. A store owner can claim a fire was started by an arsonist because he smells gasoline at the site, but since he has no trial and error experience attempting to explain what causes fires his knowledge is inferior.

This consequence of this definition is fantastic because it classifies that vast majority of 'knowledge' a person has as inferior. The student that gets the math question right, but does not know why can be said to have inferior knowledge. The priest that says he has faith in god has poor knowledge of divinity. The politician that argues more strenuous penalties on drug usage because he believe the adage 'tough love' has inferior knowledge on controlling drug usage. Those that have superior knowledge are simply the one that have applied a rigors set of trial and error applications to a set of problems and have developed the solutions that guarantee resolution.

A deeper analysis of this argument reflects my obvious bias for empiricism. Information that can not be applied to a solution is inferior knowledge. This is not problematic because one would like to regard raw phenomenological experience of some event inferior knowledge to knowing what controls bringing about that phenomenological event. It adds the unwieldy empirical criteria to a state of mind that does not necessarily makes it self amenable to empirical investigation. So lets take the example of orgasm. Can we have knowledge of orgasm? The short answer is yes. But when we try to describe an orgasm we quickly realize this phenomenological event is ineffable. How useful is knowledge that we can't even describe? What about the knowledge of knowing how to make an orgasm even more satisfying or knowledge to bring about it's occurrence more often? I would be inclined to think that this knowledge would be more useful and therefore superior. This is where my bias lands. Superior knowledge enables a person to 'control' their phenomenological events.

It seems, on this account, knowledge separates out into two kinds. Ostentatious knowledge is the knowledge of direct experience with some kind of phenomenological event while empirical knowledge is the knowledge to manipulate that phenomenological event. So ostentatious knowledge is the knowledge of direct experience and while necessary for empirical knowledge it is ultimately inferior to empirical knowledge because it fails to provide a way to bring itself about. Empirical knowledge enables control over the phenomenological event while ostentatious knowledge brings only the knowledge of the phenomenological event's existence.

It would seem my moral system values control over awareness. Well at least its my own moral system. I guess I am a K-eltist after all. Well who knew?

(1) Domain in this case simply refers to the explanatory system one begins to delineate in an effort to solve the problem. In this sense, their is not a 'true' explanation, but simply the explanation that one gives to enable consistent and reliable ability to solve the problem. Hence the priest can have exquisite knowledge over the Domain of divinity to while the Physicist can have exquisite knowledge over the Domain of Physics while both attempt to explain how the world came about.