Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:41:07.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wrongful ways to raise the epistemic standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2020

Jumbly Grindrod Open the ORCID record for Jumbly Grindrod [Opens in a new window]
Jumbly Grindrod*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Reading, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: j.grindrod@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is concerned with identifying and accounting for cases where the epistemic standard is raised inappropriately. The first section is concerned with identifying a notion of a variable epistemic standard that is neutral regarding a range of theoretical issues. The second section argues that the possibility the epistemic standard could be raised in some epistemic inappropriate way warrants further investigation. The third section outlines and provides a partial explanation of such a case: one in which a climate change denier attempts to raise the epistemic standard in order to shut down inquiry.

Keywords

Epistemic standardepistemic valuecontext-sensitivityepistemic normativity
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 455 - 469
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aristotle. (1924). Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.Google Scholar
Blome-Tillmann, M. (2014).Knowledge and Presuppositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brister, E. (2009). ‘Feminist Epistemology, Contextualism, and Philosophical Skepticism.’ Metaphilosophy 40(5), 671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brister, E. (2017). ‘Feminism and Contextualism.’ In Ichikawa, J.J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism, pp. 57–68. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burgess, A. and Plunkett, D. (2013 a). ‘Conceptual Ethics I.’ Philosophy Compass 8(12), 1091–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, A. and Plunkett, D. (2013 b). ‘Conceptual Ethics II.’ Philosophy Compass 8(12), 1102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York, NY: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1999). ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.’ Noûs 33(s13), 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. (1992). ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(4), 913–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, J., Gerken, M. and Ryan, S.B. (2017). ‘Does Contextualism Hinge on A Methodological Dispute?’ In Ichikawa, J.J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism, pp. 81–93. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2013). ‘Epistemic Focal Bias.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, M. (2019). ‘Pragmatic Encroachment and the Challenge from Epistemic Injustice.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 19.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindrod, J. (2019). ‘Depth, Value, and Context.’ Ergo 6(24). https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.024.Google Scholar
Grindrod, J., Andow, J. and Hansen, N. (2018). ‘Third-person Knowledge Ascriptions: A Crucial Experiment for Contextualism.’ Mind and Language. doi: 10.1111/mila.12196.Google Scholar
Hansen, N. (2019). ‘Metalinguistic Proposals.’ Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1658628.Google Scholar
Hansen, N. and Chemla, E. (2013). ‘Experimenting on Contextualism.’ Mind and Language 28(3), 286–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, S. (1999). ‘What Knowledge is and What it Ought to be: Feminist Values and Normative Epistemology.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13(Epistemology), 459–80.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2000). ‘Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be?’ Noûs 34(1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. (2014). Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and the Dynamic Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). ‘Relativism and Knowledge Attributions.’ In Pritchard, D. and Bernecker, S. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, pp. 536–44. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKenna, R. (2013). ‘Epistemic Contextualism: A Normative Approach.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94(1), 101–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J. (2010). ‘Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of Thinking About Error.’ Philosophical Quarterly 60(239), 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, D. and Sundell, T. (2013). ‘Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 13(23), 1–37.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). ‘On Meta-Epistemology.’ Harvard Review of Philosophy 18(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. (2001). ‘The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ Noûs 35(4), 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. (2005). ‘Contesting Contextualism.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 69(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2005). ‘Contextualism, Subject-Sensitive Invariantism, and Knowledge of Knowledge.’ Philosophical Quarterly 55(219), 213–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar