Epistemic Uniqueness and the Practical Relevance of Epistemic Practices
- 100 Downloads
By taking the practical relevance of coordinated epistemic standards into account, Dogramaci and Horowitz (Philosophical Issues, 26(1), 130–147, 2016) as well as Greco and Hedden (The Journal of Philosophy, 113(8), 365–395, 2016) offer a new perspective on epistemic permissiveness. However, in its current state, their argument appears to be inconclusive. I will offer two reasons why this argument does not support interpersonal uniqueness in general. First, such an argument leaves open the possibility that distinct closed societies come to incompatible epistemic standards. Second, some epistemic practices like the promotion of methodological heterogeneity in epistemic communities could be best explained by epistemic permissiveness.
KeywordsRationality Uniqueness Epistemic peer Epistemic labour
This research was financed by the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur la Normativité (GRIN) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (#767-2016-1771). Thanks to Daniel Laurier, Simon-Pierre Chevarie-Cossette, Andrew Reisner, Xander Selene and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments and suggestions.
- Dahlback, M. L. (Forthcoming). Infinitely Permissive. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
- Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Greco, D., & Hedden, B. (2016). Uniqueness and Metaepistemology. The Journal of Philosophy, 113(8), 365–395. doi: 10.5840/jphil2016113825.
- Grimm, S. R. (2009). Epistemic normativity. In In Epistemic Value, edited by Adrian haddock, Allan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard, 2009:243–64. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. (2016). The social dimensions of scientific knowledge. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Ed.) Zalta E. N., spring 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/.
- Raleigh, Thomas. 2015. “An Argument for Permissivism from Safespots.” In Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, edited by Wiebe van der Hoek, Wesley H. Holliday, and Wen-fang Wang, 308–15. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9394. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-48561-3_25.
- Sharadin, N. (2015). A partial defense of Permissivism. Ratio. doi: 10.1111/rati.12115/full.
- Titelbaum, Michael G., and Matthew Kopec. (forthcoming). When rational Reasoners reason differently. In Reasoning: Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking, (Ed.), Balcerak Jackson M., Balcerak Jackson B. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Titelbaum, M. & Kopec M. (m.s). Plausible Permissivism. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
- White, R. (2014). Evidence cannot be permissive. In Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, (Eds.), Steup M, Turri J, Sosa E (pp. 312–23). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar