Epistemic evaluation and the need for ‘impure’ epistemic standards

Author:

Kompa Nikola AnnaORCID

Abstract

AbstractThat knowledge ascriptions exhibit some form of sensitivity to context is uncontroversial. How best to account for the context-sensitivity at issue, however, is the topic of heated debates. A certain version of nonindexical contextualism seems to be a promising option. Even so, it is incumbent upon any contextualist account to explain in what way and to what extent the epistemic standard operative in a particular context of epistemic evaluation is affected by non-epistemic factors (such as practical interests). In this paper, I investigate how non-epistemic factors come into play when knowledge is ascribed. I argue that knowledge ascriptions often serve the purpose of providing actionable information. This, in turn, requires that epistemic interests be balanced against non-epistemic interests. Moreover, it raises the question of whose interests matter, those of the ascriber, the addressee (of the knowledge ascription), or the subject of ascription. Eventually, an answer to the question is suggested.

Funder

Volkswagen Foundation

Projekt DEAL

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Social Sciences,Philosophy

Reference74 articles.

1. Annis, D. (1978). A contextualist theory of epistemic justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 213–219.

2. Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 148, 148–187. (Reprinted in J. L. Austin 31979. Philosophical Papers (pp. 76−116). Oxford: Oxford University Press).

3. Bach, K. (2006). The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2), 435–442.

4. Baumann, P. (2012). Knowledge, practical reasoning and action. Logos and Episteme, III(I), 7–26.

5. Baumann, P. (2016). Epistemic contextualism—A defense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3