Article contents
The Case against Epistemic Relativism: Reflections on Chapter 6 of Fear of Knowledge
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 January 2012
Abstract
According to one sort of epistemic relativist, normative epistemic claims (e.g., evidence E justifies hypothesis H) are never true or false simpliciter, but only relative to one or another epistemic system. In chapter 6 of Fear of Knowledge, Paul Boghossian objects to this view on the ground that its central notions cannot be explained, and that it cannot account for the normativity of epistemic discourse. This paper explores how the dogged relativist might respond.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
References
REFERENCES
Boghossian, Paul. 2005. “Relativism and Epistemic Norms.” Lecture, Princeton University, April 2005.Google Scholar
Broome, John. 2001. “Are Intentions Reasons? And How Should We Cope with Incommensurable Values?” Pp. 98–120 in Practical Rationality and Preference: Essays for David Gauthier, ed. Morris, Christopher and Ripstein, Arthur. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Ernest, Lepore. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Richard. 1987. A Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1996. “Moral Relativism.” Pp. 1–64 in Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity, ed. Harman, Gilbert and Thompson, Judith. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1999. “Pragmatism and Reasons for Belief.” Pp. 93–118 in Reasoning, Meaning and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1983. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Pp. 233–249 in Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2000. “Context and Logical Form.” Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6
- Cited by