, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 35–49 | Cite as

Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection

  • M. Janvid


A common objection raised against naturalism is that anaturalized epistemology cannot account for the essential normative character of epistemology. Following an analysis of different ways in which this charge could be understood, it will be argued that either epistemology is not normative in the relevant sense, or if it is, then in a way which a naturalized epistemology can account for with an instrumental and hypothetical model of normativity. Naturalism is here captured by the two doctrines of empiricism and gradualism. Epistemology is a descriptive discipline about what knowledge is and under what conditions a knowledge-claim is justified. However, we can choose to adopt a standard of justification and by doing so be evaluated by it. In this sense our epistemic practices have a normative character, but this is a form of normativity a naturalized epistemology can make room for. The normativity objection thus fails. However, in the course of this discussion, as yet another attempt to clarify the normativity objection, such a naturalistic model will be contrasted with Donald Davidson's theory of interpretation. Even though this comparison will not improve upon the negative verdict upon the original objection, it will be argued that naturalism cannot accept Davidson's theory since it contains at least one constitutive principle – the principle of charity – whose epistemic status is incompatible with the naturalistic doctrine of gradualism. So, if this principle has this role, then epistemology cannot be naturalized.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chisholm, R.: 1966, Theory of Knowledge, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  2. Churchland, P. S.: 1987, ‘Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience’, Journal of Philosophy LXXXIV, 544–553.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D.: 1970, ‘Mental Events’, reprinted in Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 207–225.Google Scholar
  4. Davidson, D.: 1973, ‘Radical Interpretation’, reprinted in 1984, pp. 125-139.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, D.: 1974a, ‘Belief and the Basis of Meaning’, reprinted in 1984, pp. 141-154.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, D.: 1974b, ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, reprinted in 1984, pp. 183-198.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D.: 1975, ‘Thought and Talk’, reprinted in 1984, p. 155-170.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, D.: 1984, Inquires into Truth and Interpretation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D.: 1985a, ‘A New Basis for Decision Theory’, Theory and Decision 18, 87–98.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D.: 1985b, ‘Incoherence and Irrationality’, Dialectica 39, 345–354.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D.: 1986, ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’, in Ernest LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 307–319.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D.: 1987, ‘Problems in the Explanation of Action’, in P. Petit, R. Sylvan and J. Norman (eds.), Metaphysics and Morality, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
  13. Davidson, D.: 1991, ‘Epistemology Externalized’, Dialectica 45, 191–202.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G.: 1956, ‘The Thought: A Logical Inquiry’, translated by A. M. and M. Quinton, Mind 65, 289–311.Google Scholar
  15. Glüer, K.: 2001, ‘Dreams and Nightmares. Conventions, Norms and Meaning in Davidson's Philosophy of Language’, in P. Kotatko, P. Pagin and G. Segal (eds.), Interpreting Davidson, CSLI Publications, Standford, California, pp 53–74.Google Scholar
  16. Glüer, K. and P. Pagin: 1999, ‘Rules of Meaning and Practical Reasoning’, Synthese 117, 207–227.Google Scholar
  17. Haack, S.: 1993, Evidence and Inquiry, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Janvid, M.: 2001, Naturalism and the Status of Epistemology, Stockholm University Department of Philosophy Pre-print Series no. 7.Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I.: 1933, Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by N. K. Smith, Macmillan Education, London.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, J.: 1988, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology”?’, reprinted in H. Kornblith (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1994, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
  21. Koppelberg, D.: 1990, ‘Why and How to Naturalize Epistemology’, in R. B. Barrett and R. F. Gibson, Jr. (eds.), Perspectives on Quine, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 200–211.Google Scholar
  22. Kornblith, H.: 1993, ‘Epistemic Normativity’, Synthese 94, 357–376.Google Scholar
  23. McDowell, J.: 1994, Mind and World, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.Google Scholar
  24. Maffie, J.: 1990a, ‘Recent Work on Naturalized Epistemology’, American Philosophical Quarterly 27, 281–294.Google Scholar
  25. Maffie, J.: 1990b, ‘Naturalism and the Normativity of Epistemology’, Philosophical Studies 59, 333–349.Google Scholar
  26. Plantinga, A.: 1993, Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Quine, W. V.: 1969, ‘Epistemology Naturalized’, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
  28. Quine, W. V.: 1986, ‘Reply to Morgan White’, in E. L. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, Open Court, The Library of Living Philosophers, La Salle, Illinois, pp. 663–665.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. V.: 1992, Pursuit of Truth, Revised edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, A.: 1996, ‘A Field Guide to Recent Species of Naturalism’, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 47, 1–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Janvid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations