Abstract
In this article, the epistemological interpretation of the relationship between concepts of relativism, beliefs, and probability ensures a defense of two theses, namely, (i) epistemic relativism refers to attitudes that depend on the repetition and anchoring of probabilistic beliefs, and (ii) Popper’s propensity interpretation of probability discloses the connections between relativity, probability, and collective subjectivity. The propensity interpretation brings a framework for describing the role of collective subjectivity in epistemic systems. This approach, as an acceptable epistemological stance, is related to the variability of anchored collective beliefs. The repetition and anchoring of subjective probabilistic beliefs becomes a relative reference frame for evaluating the elements of knowledge. With this in mind, each particular way of considering probability indicates a manner of distinguishing epistemic systems. In epistemic systems, the statements are collective points of view expressed in the form ‘p is justified when belief in p is probably reliable.’ The statements can be accurate in a particular epistemic system but inaccurate in other systems. As a result, by avoiding the ‘all statements must be true or false’ requirement, each proponent of a certain epistemic system can build a probabilistic picture of the world. In this picture, not every statement needs to be ‘true’ when and if the statement expresses a collective point of view that has a propensity to be reliable and justified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arló-Costa H, Pedersen AP (2012) Belief and probability: a general theory of probability cores. Int J Approx Reason 53(3):293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2012.01.002
Baghramian M, Coliva A (2019) Relativism. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429343308
Berkovitz J (2015) The propensity interpretation of probability: a re-evaluation. Erkenntnis 80(3 Supplement):629–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9716-8
Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Boghossian P (2006) Fear of knowledge: against relativism and constructivist. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287185.001.0001
Boghossian P (2007) The case against epistemic relativism: replies to rosen and neta. Episteme 4(1):49–65. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2007.4.1.49
Bohr N (1949) Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In Schilpp PA (ed) Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist (The Library of Living Philosophers), Vol 7, The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL, pp 199–241
Carruthers P (2002) The roots of scientific reasoning: infancy, modularity and the art of tracking. In: Carruthers P, Stich S, Siegal M (eds) The cognitive basis of science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613517.005
Cetina KK (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxw3q7f
Dọmingues JM (1995) The constitution of collective subjectivities. In: Sociological theory and collective subjectivity,Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230376342_8
Evans-Pritchard EE (1937) Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande. Oxford University Press, Oxford: Clarendon Press; London
Ganeri J (2019) Epistemic pluralism: from systems to stances. J Am Philos Assoc 5(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2018.34
Gettier EL (1963) Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23(6):121–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121
Gillies D (2000a) Philosophical theories of probability. Routledge, London
Gillies D (2000b) Varieties of propensities. Br J Philos Sci 51(4):807–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.4.807
Gilbert M (2004) Collective epistemology. Episteme 1(2):95–107. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2004.1.2.95
Hacking I (1965) Logic of statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hautamäki A (2020) Viewpoint relativism: a new approach to epistemological relativism based on the concept of points of view, transl. by M. Mamane. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34595-2
Hunter D (1996) On the relation between categorical and probabilistic belief. Noûs 30(1):75–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2216304
Jennings RC (1989) Zande logic and western logic. Br J Philos Sci 40(2):275–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/40.2.275
Koppl R (2006) Epistemic systems. Episteme 2(2):91–106. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2005.2.2.91
Kusch M (2017) Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism. Synthese 194(12):4687–4703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1041-0
Lehrer K (1979) The Gettier problem and the analysis of knowledge. In: Pappas GS (ed) Justification and knowledge. Philosophical studies series in philosophy, vol 17, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9493-5_4
Martins ACR (2014) Modelling epistemic systems. In: Dabbaghian V, Mago V (eds) Theories and simulations of complex social systems. Intelligent systems reference library, vol 52, Springer, Berlin, pp 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39149-1_3
Miller D (1991) Single-case probabilities. Found Phys 21(12):1501–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889654
Morkina JS (2007) L. Wittgenstein – D. Bloor. The institutional nature of knowledge. In: Kasavin IT (ed) Language, knowledge, society: problems of social epistemology, IPhRAS Publishers, Moscow, pp 94–115
Neta R (2007) Defense of epistemic relativism. Episteme 4(1):30–48. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2007.4.1.30
Peirce CS (1910/2011) A note on the doctrine of chances. In: Buchler J (ed) Philosophical writings of peirce, chap 12, sec. II, Dover, New York, pp 164–173
Pollock S (2001) The new intellectuals in seventeenth-century India. Indian Econ Soc Hist Rev 38:3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460103800101
Popper KR (1957) The propensity interpretation of the calculus of probability, and quantum theory. In: Korner S (ed) Observation and interpretation in the philosophy of physics. Dover, New York, pp 65–60
Popper KR (1959) The propensity interpretation of probability. Br J Philos Sci 10(37):25–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/X.37.25
Popper KR (1982) Quantum theory and the schism in physics (the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery, 3). Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, New Jersey
Rocchi P (2014) Janus-faced probability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04861-1
Rosen G (2007) The case against epistemic relativism: reflections on chapter 6 of fear of knowledge. Episteme 4(1):10–29. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2007.4.1.10
Sankey H (2010) Witchcraft, relativism and the problem of the criterion. Erkenntnis 72(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9193-7
Veigl SJ (2020) Notes on a complicated relationship: scientific pluralism, epistemic relativism, and stances. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02943-2
Zangwill N (2020) Epistemic pluralism: the missing link and the ambitions of epistemology. Metaphilosophy 51(4):485–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12447
Zhuravlev AL (2009) Collective subject: main features levels and psychological types. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 30(5):72–80
Zovko J (2018) Some problems with scientific relativism and moral realism. Axiomathes 28(6):665–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-018-9400-8
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Statement of human rights
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”
Statement on the welfare of animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kulikov, S.B. Epistemic Relativism, Probability, and Forms of Subjectivity. Axiomathes 32, 1061–1079 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09565-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09565-4