Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:37:43.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Ecological Should Epistemology Be?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Richmond Campbell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 161 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Antony, Louise. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise. 2000. Naturalized epistemology, morality, and the real world. In Moral epistemology naturalizedCanadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 26), ed. Campbell, Richmond and Hunter, Bruce. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 1994. The virtues of feminist empiricism. 32 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 1998. Illusions of paradox: A feminist epistemology naturalized. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 2001. The bias paradox in feminist epistemology. In Engendering rationalities, ed. Tuana, Nancy and Morgen, Sandra. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 2003. Feminist epistemology naturalized. In Feminist interpretations of W. V. Quine, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond, and Woodrow, Jennifer. 2003. Why Moore's open question is open: The evolution of moral supervenience. 32 37: 353–72.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 2006. Ecological thinking: The politics of epistemic location. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1988. Explaining science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1985. Epistemic dependence. 32 82: 335–49.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. 32 88: 693–708.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows? From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1992. Birth of a new physics or death of nature? In Women and reason, ed. Harvey, Elizabeth and Okruhlik, Kathleen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan. 1998. Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1972. What's wrong with the received view on the structure of scientific theories? 32 39: 1–19.Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 1989. The structure of biological theories. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar