Тёмный

Contextualism for Epistemologists 

Professor OH at Vassar
Подписаться 1,6 тыс.
Просмотров 940
50% 1

In which we discuss Jason Stanley's 2004 paper explaining and finding problems with contextualism in epistemology.

Опубликовано:

 

8 сен 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 6   
@DileepKumar62
@DileepKumar62 Год назад
❤❤
@93alvbjo
@93alvbjo 3 года назад
The word ”know” is ambiguous, because most people aren’t epistemologists. Many people who use the word, use it like ”I believe P, because I have justification that P”. But we know now that the JTP theory of knowledge is Wrong, thanks to Kant, William James and Karl Popper.
@AbstractMan1
@AbstractMan1 6 месяцев назад
I’m not quite sure what JTP is, but it sounds like you may have meant “JTB” for ‘Justified True Belief”, which was ultimately shown to be faulty as a basis for knowledge by Edmund Gettier in his groundbreaking paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. The problem with JTB as a basis for knowledge, because of Edmund Gettier’s paper, is known as “The Gettier Problem”.
@bp56789
@bp56789 2 года назад
Why not just throw out the term “knowledge”? Credences (subjective probabilities) are well-defined. And if you have some procedure that you perform on a set of data to generate Bayes factors, you can see how well that procedure performs under different conditions. You can get logical guarantees for some procedures under some assumptions. I dunno, to me, these definitional debates always sound more like dictionary editors arguing, rather than philosophy. I don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t get how people can spend years thinking about this stuff.
@professorohatvassar1274
@professorohatvassar1274 2 года назад
Some philosophers agree and many sympathize with you. However, "knowledge" is an important epistemic achievement, and it is particularly important for philosophers (and inquirers) worried about various sorts of skepticism or skeptical possibilities, from mild to radical. You could have incredibly high and justified credences about P and still be wrong about P - that is what 'knowledge' tracks. Credences are doxastic (belief-like), not epistemic (they never amount to knowledge on their own). Furthermore, "knowledge" is not the only epistemically important concept. We also have concepts for "understanding," "ability" or "know-how," "wisdom," and so on, and for some of those credence concepts are quite orthogonal or at best watered down.
@bp56789
@bp56789 2 года назад
@@professorohatvassar1274 Should’ve said this earlier, but I found your video interesting and well explained. Thank you for answering, and thank you for the video.
Далее
Knowledge First Epistemology
26:23
Просмотров 2,3 тыс.
The Value of Knowledge
22:21
Просмотров 620
PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Contextualism [HD]
8:45
Просмотров 54 тыс.
Contextualism
28:05
Просмотров 5 тыс.
The Mind Problem and The Body Problem
26:42
Disagreement Part 2: Conciliationism
33:18
Просмотров 333
Symbolic Systems and the Language of Thought
37:33
Просмотров 4,7 тыс.
Jordan Peterson on Reading and Writing and Thinking
17:06
Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism
26:20
Просмотров 1 тыс.
Levin, Molyneux, and the Knowledge Argument
27:53
Mental Causation II
39:23
Просмотров 1,8 тыс.