Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:36:33.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moderate Epistemic Relativism and Our Epistemic Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Jonathan M. Weinberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although radical forms of relativism are perhaps beyond the epistemological pale, I argue here that a more moderate form may be plausible, and articulate the conditions under which moderate epistemic relativism could well serve our epistemic goals. In particular, as a result of our limitations as human cognizers, we find ourselves needing to investigate the dappled and difficult world by means of competing communities of highly specialized researchers. We would do well, I argue, to admit of the existence of unresolvable disputes between such communities, but only so long as there is a sufficient amount of fruitful exchange between them as well. I close with some speculation about when it is or is not legitimate to make an “appeal to discipline”: responding to another’s argument by saying something like, “we should do it this way, because we are philosophers (/linguists/psychologists/…), and that’s just what we do”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 66 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Colin. 2004. “Is Anyone a Cognitive Ethologist?” Biology & Philosophy 19: 589–607.Google Scholar
Almeder, Robert. 1998. Harmless Naturalism: The Limits of Science and the Nature of Philosophy. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BonJour, Laurence. 1994. “Against Naturalized Epistemology.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19: 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, Rodney. 1991. “Intelligence Without Representation.” Artificial Intelligence, 47: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, David. 2005. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 2002. “Evidence for Numerical Abilities in Young Infants: A Fatal Flaw?” Developmental Science 5 (2): 202–205.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, Anthony. 2000. “Anti-representationalism and the Dynamical Stance.” Philosophy of Science 67: 625–647.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner.” Language 35: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Leslie and Kathryn, Marks. 2002. “How Infants Process Addition and Subtraction Events.” Developmental Science 5: 186–201.Google Scholar
Craig, Edward. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn. 1990. “The Potential Nonfalsity of the False Consensus Effect.” Pp. 179–199 in Hogarth, R. M., ed., Insights into Decision Making. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Dupre, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eliasmith, Chris. 1996. “The Third Contender: A Critical Examination of the Dynamicist Theory of Cognition.” Philosophical Psychology 9: 441–463.Google Scholar
Fagan, Melinda. 2007. “The Search for the Hematopoietic Stem Cell: Social Interaction and Epistemic Success in Immunology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 38: 217–237.Google Scholar
Feigenson, Lisa, Carey, Susan, and Elizabeth, Spelke. 2002. “Infants' Discrimination of Number vs. Continuous Extent.” Cognitive Psychology 44: 33–66.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowmanand Littlefield.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image & Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 1991a. “From Tools to Theories: A Heuristic for Discovery in Cognitive Psychology.” Psychological Review 98: 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 1991b. “How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases.” European Review of Social Psychology 2: 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, Peter, and the ABC Group. 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1987. “Foundations of Social Epistemics.” Synthese 73: 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan. 1994. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hales, Steven. 1997. “A Consistent Relativism.” Mind 106: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1966. The Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Horgan, Terrence and John, Tienson. 1989. “Representations without Rules.” Philosophical Topics 17: 27–43.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1988. “What is ‘Naturalized Epistemology’?” Philosophical Perspectives 2: 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Tessei, Hiraki, Kazuo, Mugitani, Ryoko, and Hasegawa, Toshikazu. 2004. “Baby Arithmetic: One Object Plus One Tone.” Cognition 91: B23–B34.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2002. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1987. “Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 24: 19–31.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1990. “Aim-less Epistemology.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 21: 315–322.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, Edouard and Clark, Barrett. 2006. “Debunking Adapting Minds.” Philosophy of Science 73: 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffie, James. 2000. “Alternative Epistemologies and the Value of Truth.” Social Epistemology 14: 247–257.Google Scholar
Mix, Kelly. 2002. “Trying to Build on Shifting Sand: Commentary on Cohen and Marks.” Developmental Science 5 (2): 205–206.Google Scholar
Neta, Ram. 2006. “Epistemology Factualized: New Contractarian Foundations for Epistemology.” Synthese 150: 247–280.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Kai. 1993. “Relativism and Wide Reflective Equilibrium.” Monist 76: 316–332.Google Scholar
Owens, David. 2006. “Testimony and Assertion.” Philosophical Studies 130: 105–129.Google Scholar
Paradis, Cardita. 2003. “Is the Notion of Linguistic Competence Relevant in Cognitive Linguistics?” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penke, Martina and Rosenbach, Annette. 2004. “What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics?” Studies in Language 28: 480–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, John. 1987. “Defeasible Reasoning.” Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. and Joseph, Ullian. 1978. The Web of Belief, 2nd edn. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Frederick. 2000. “Veritistic Value.” Social Epistemology 14: 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest. 1991. Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen. 1988. “Reflective Equilibrium, Analytic Epistemology and the Problem of Cognitive Diversity.” Synthese 74: 391–413.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen. 1990. The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Esther, Schöner, Gregor, Scheier, Christian, and Linda, Smith. 2001. “The Dynamics of Embodiment: A Field Theory of Infant Perseverative Reaching.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 1–34.Google Scholar
Thelen, Esther and Linda, Smith. 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
van, Gelder Timothy and Robert, Port. 1995. “It's About Time: An Overview of the Dynamical Approach to Cognition.” Pp. 1–43 in Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, eds. Gelder, van and Port.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
VanMarle, Kristy and Karen, Wynn. 2003. “Tone Discrimination by 6-month-old Infants.” Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
Vranas, Peter. 2000. “Gigerenzer's Normative Critique of Kahneman and Tversky.” Cognition 76: 179–193.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Jonathan. 2006. “What's Epistemology For? The Case for Neopragmatism in Normative Metaepistemology.” Pp. 26–47 in Hetherington, S., ed. Epistemology Futures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Jonathan, Nichols, Shaun, and Stephen, Stich. 2001. “Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.” Philosophical Topics 29 (1/2): 429–460.Google Scholar
Xu, Fei. 2003. “Numerosity Discrimination in Infants: Evidence for Two Systems of Representation.” Cognition 89: B15–B25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Fei, Spelke, Elizabeth, and Sydney, Goddard. 2005. “Number Sense in Human Infants.” Developmental Science 8: 88–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar