			Home About us Contact

Epistemic Concepts (epistemic + concept)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	75%

Selected Abstracts

Epistemic Presuppositions and their Consequences

METAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 1-2 2003
Juli Eflin
Traditional epistemology has, in the main, presupposed that the primary task is to give a complete account of the concept knowledge and to state under what conditions it is possible to have it. In so doing, most accounts have been hierarchical, and all assume an idealized knower. The assumption of an idealized knower is essential for the traditional goal of generating an unassailable account of knowledge acquisition. Yet we, as individuals, fail to reach the ideal. Perhaps more important, we have epistemic goals not addressed in the traditional approach , among them, the ability to reach understanding in areas we deem important for our lives. Understanding is an epistemic concept. But how we obtain it has not traditionally been a focus. Developing an epistemic account that starts from a set of assumptions that differ from the traditional starting points will allow a different sort of epistemic theory, one on which generating understanding is a central goal and the idealized knower is replaced with an inquirer who is not merely fallible but working from a particular context with particular goals. Insight into how an epistemic account can include the particular concerns of an embedded inquirer can be found by examining the parallels between ethics and epistemology and, in particular, by examining the structure and starting points of virtue accounts. Here I develop several interrelated issues that contrast the goals and evaluative concepts that form the structure of both standard, traditional epistemological and ethical theories and virtue,centered theories. In the end, I sketch a virtue,centered epistemology that accords with who we are and how we gain understanding. [source]

Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: a comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers

DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, Issue 4 2009
Tomoko Matsui
It has been repeatedly shown that when asked to identify a protagonist's false belief on the basis of his false statement, English-speaking 3-year-olds dismiss the statement and fail to attribute to him a false belief. In the present studies, we tested 3-year-old Japanese children in a similar task, using false statements accompanied by grammaticalized particles of speaker (un)certainty, as in everyday Japanese utterances. The Japanese children were directly compared with same-aged German children, whose native language does not have grammaticalized epistemic concepts. Japanese children profited from the explicit statement of the protagonist's false belief when it was marked with the attitude of certainty in a way that German children did not , presumably because Japanese but not German children must process such marking routinely in their daily discourse. These results are discussed in the broader context of linguistic and theory of mind development. [source]

The Tension in Wittgenstein's Diagnosis of Scepticism

DIALECTICA, Issue 3 2000
Reid Buchanan
I argue that Wittgenstein's rejection of scepticism in On Certainty rests on the view that epistemic concepts such as,doubt,,knowledge',,justification'and so on, cannot be intelligibly applied to the common sense propositions that traditional sceptical arguments appear to undermine. I detect two strands in On Certainty in support of this view. I attempt to show that neither of these strands adequately establishes the thesis, and that they point to a tension in Wittgenstein's treatment of scepticism. I argue that the first strand is dogmatic, but accords with the constraints of Wittgenstein's method, while the second strand avoids the dogmatism of the first at the cost of violating these constraints. [source]

An Argument Against Reduction in Morality and Epistemology

PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS, Issue 3 2006
Jeremy Randel Koons
To avoid Moore's open question objection and similar arguments, reductionist philosophers argue that normative (e.g. moral and epistemic) and natural terms are only coextensive, but not synonymous. These reductionists argue that the normative content of normative terms is not a feature of their extension, but is accounted for in some other way (e.g. as a feature of these terms' meaning). However, reductionist philosophers cannot account for this "normative surplus" while remaining true to their original reductionist motivations. The reductionist's theoretical commitments both require and forbid a reductionist account of the normative content of moral and epistemic concepts. [source]