Epistemology can be divided into two parts: one being traditional epistemology and the other being naturalized epistemology. The difference between the two is that traditionalists simply accept what they think they know whereas naturalists put what they think they know to empirical tests. When I say empirical, I mean methodologies of the natural science. In other words meaning putting things we think we know to practical tests to find out if it is true, scientifically. Or to even better understand what I mean by empirical, it is essentially another way of saying naturalized epistemology. In this essay I will establish the reasons why naturalized epistemology is a better choice over traditional epistemology.
Firstly I will establish how naturalized epistemology is not the better choice. Thomas Kuhn discusses the effects of scientific paradigms in his essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). A scientific paradigm is a set of forms such as experimental assumptions and theoretical principles, for example: journal articles. Kuhn says that paradigms can help verify an empirical matter in epistemology but once a scientist loses faith in a paradigm, it becomes unreliable. To solve this problem, scientists would create a new paradigm. For example: the theory of phlogiston became unreliable, so Lavoisier created Lavoisier’s chemistry. What Kuhn discovered is that when you jump from one paradigm to the next, it is not rational because paradigms decide what is rational. Therefore there is no unbiased way that we can look at paradigms, meaning that paradigms, being a type of empirical epistemology, are not reliable. But Kuhn soon brought up the idea of paradigm-shift, thinking that this would solve the problem. A paradigm-shift ...
... middle of paper ...
...justification can seem to be a good way to undertake epistemology. But as I have mentioned examples from Quine, we can now see that naturalized epistemology can be a better way to undertake epistemology because it is more precise and accurate than knowledge achieved by other means.
Works Cited
Kim, Jaegwon. “What is ‘Naturalized Epistemology’?” Epistemology. 2nd Ed. Ernest Sosa, Jaegwon Kim, Jeremy Fantl, and Matthew McGrath. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 538-551. Print.
Quine, W. V. “Epistemology Naturalized.” Epistemology. 2nd Ed. Ernest Sosa, Jaegwon Kim, Jeremy Fantl, and Matthew McGrath. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 528-537. Print.
Feldman, Richard, "Naturalized Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
(1) Kelly, Thomas (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg.1 – 36.
Though it is agreed that epistemologists need to account for the role social factors play in inquiry, developing a viable social epistemology has proved to be a difficult task. According to Longino, it is the processes that make inquiry possible that are social, requiring a number of people to sustain them. These processes, she claims, not only facilitate inquiry, but also ensure that the results of inquiry are more than mere subjective opinions, and thus deserve to be called "knowledge." Here, I want to both explain and defend Longino's epistemology.
The type of research conducted often depends on the epistemology of the researcher. Epistemology is considered the justification of knowledge; it is about the relationship between the researcher, knowledge, and how knowledge is created (Carter...
The approaches given by Pierce and Nagel to the epistemological questions of doubt and belief, though diverse in that they are strictly pragmatist and Cartesian, contain a similar underlying principle. They both serve to show that belief cannot come from any source that appeals to one’s feelings or purposes, experiences or impressions. Beliefs must arise from a non-personal means. Although this is a commonality between the two approaches in epistemology, they are greatly different arguments in their focuses. Pierce’s pragmatist approach surfaces along the lines of techniques people use to found their beliefs of reality, here assuming reality from the start, and using that as a foundation to delve into questions of the unknown. Nagel’s look at the Cartesian approach primarily doubts reality, and uses that as the grounds for the rest of his argument, asking how we can know anything beyond ourselves. These approaches lead to very different views on epistemology.
ABSTRACT: BonJour argues that there can be no basic empirical beliefs. But premises three and four jointly entail ‘BonJour’s Rule’ — one’s belief that p is justified only if one justifiably believes the premises of an argument that makes p highly likely — which, given human psychology, entails global skepticism. His responses to the charge of skepticism, restricting premise three to basic beliefs and noting that the Rule does not require ‘explicit’ belief, fail. Moreover, the Rule does not express an epistemic duty. Finally, his argument against this fails since it is false that if an experiential state has representational content, then it is in need of justification. I venture the diagnosis that BonJour mistook the representational content of a cognitive state for the assertive functional role of a belief. Foundationalism may well be false, but not for BonJour’s reasons.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
Locke's Essay is one of the classical documents of British empirical philosophy. His official concern is with epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Locke sees the u...
This essay starts with definition of traditional epistemology, followed by an explanation of how class, gender, and race can affect what one can know. Traditional epistemology can be defined as all knowers, regardless of who you are or what your social situation is, are bound by the same cognitive norms. (lecture) Charles Mills however, in the article “Alternative Epistemologies”, argues that who you are and your social situation change your access to knowledge. He criticizes that traditional epistemology fails to consider how an individual’s social situation can affect what he can know. Those in non-dominant social groups have epistemic access especially for knowing about oppression. In this essay I will attempt to explain Mills argument
The quest for knowledge, a topic often contemplated in philosophy, remains persistent with mankind seeking to understand the uncertainty in the world surrounding him. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that raises questions and provides answers about what constitutes knowledge and justifies belief. The main concerns of knowledge in epistemology are how it is defined, what the source is, how it’s acquired, what its limitations are, and what kind of knowledge is necessary. Three very well known philosophers of their time offer their different ideas on the subject of knowledge and epistemology.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It is mainly concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question of what distinguishes true or adequate knowledge from otherwise false or inadequate knowledge (Heylighen). The major branches of epistemological theory are rationalism, empiricism and mysticism. Rationalism implies that knowledge is obtained through reason and introspection. Ones ideas are justified by sense experience, but if the senses and intuition are in conflict, the sensory evidence must be discarded. In empiricism, knowledge is obtained through observation and experiment. Models and theories may be used to organize this sensory experience, but if theories contradict experience they are wrong. In mysticism, knowledge is obtained through faith, emotions or revelation but if observation or intuition contradict, the knowledge is thus deemed wrong (“Rationalism”). Doubt, as a Persian Proverb once said, is the key to knowledge. It is one of the influencing factors in the expansion of knowledge. A fact that is conside...
A question that epistemologist ask is what sort of factors make beliefs justified. That is to say, could there possibly be a set of basic justified beliefs that rationally define all of your other beliefs? Or perhaps there are no foundational beliefs, but rather an infinite amount of beliefs that explain the ones that came before it. Are these beliefs based on evidence or perhaps something more? Epistemology attempts to answer these such questions.
The problem facing induction has been a great challenge presented by epistemology to various philosophers, among them David Hume. Since the 18th century, he has raised the induction concern to various philosophers with the aim of finding a solution to the dilemma. Karl Popper, Chalmers among others philosophers played an imperative role in identifying a considerable solution to the induction problem. In philosophy, induction is defined as a form of reasoning that is derived from a particular observation of a phenomenon and draws conclusions from the phenomenon. For instance, it is certain that the sun will rise tomorrow in the morning simply because it has been observed that it rises every morning. This is an example of inductive reasoning among individuals. On the contrary, philosophers stipulate that inductive reasoning has its challenges that are based on the aspect of justification (Sellars, 2000, p. 64). This essay will aim at evaluating the problems of induction and establishing some possible solutions to the dilemma.
Epistemology helped me investigate the procedure I went through for crafting the essays. I referred to books, online articles, journal and other publications to understand and justify the concepts and information. It helped me distinguish between what is false, what is true across diverse contexts, and to decide the boundaries of knowledge based on how that knowledge is acquired. I also evaluated the truthfulness of my beliefs and personal opinion. I am actuated by understanding the sources of knowledge and also the quality of the resulting knowledge – knowing its dimensions and limitations.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, various problems of skepticism, the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?" and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"