发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding 法律事实认定中的正当性、连贯性和认知责任
IF 1.7 2区 哲学
Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2008-10-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2489867
Amalia Amaya
{"title":"Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding","authors":"Amalia Amaya","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2489867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2489867","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the coherence bias. The paper then develops an aretaic approach to the standards of epistemic responsibility which govern legal factfinding. It concludes by exploring some implications of the proposed account of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law for the epistemology of legal proof.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"08 1","pages":"306 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2008-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86527395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Conspiracy Theories 阴谋论
IF 1.7 2区 哲学
Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2007-12-20 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0019
D. Coady
{"title":"Conspiracy Theories","authors":"D. Coady","doi":"10.1353/epi.2007.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/epi.2007.0019","url":null,"abstract":"Current thinking about conspiracy theories is dominated by epistemological and psychological approaches. The former see the study of conspiracy theories as a branch of epistemology and insist that each theory should be judged on its evidential merits. On this account, a conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event which cites a conspiracy as a salient cause. Psychological approaches explain belief in conspiracy theories by reference to individual personality traits and generic cognitive biases. Despite their popularity, both epistemological and psychological approaches are flawed. After identifying their flaws, a case is made for a different perspective which focuses on the political function of conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is not just an explanation of an event which cites a conspiracy as a salient cause. Conspiracy theories have a range of additional features which distinguish them from ordinary theories about conspiracies and make them unlikely to be true. The political approach sees many conspiracy theories as forms of political propaganda and is especially mindful of the role of conspiracy theories in promoting extremist ideologies.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"41 1","pages":"131 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2007-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74682727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37
The Benefits of Multiple Biased Observers 多重偏见观察者的好处
IF 1.7 2区 哲学
Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2007-05-26 DOI: 10.1353/EPI.2007.0002
R. Goodin
{"title":"The Benefits of Multiple Biased Observers","authors":"R. Goodin","doi":"10.1353/EPI.2007.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/EPI.2007.0002","url":null,"abstract":"We know that we can learn much from the reports of multiple competent, independent, unbiased observers. There are also things we can learn from the reports of competent but biased observers. Specifically, when reports go against the grain of an agent's known biases, we can be relatively confident in the veracity of those reports. Triangulating on the truth via that mechanism requires a multiplicity of observers with distinct biases, each of whose reports might be one-way decisive in that fashion. It also presupposes that all observers share the same fundamental epistemic standards.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"34 1","pages":"166 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2007-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77982364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Objectivity and Perspective in Empirical Knowledge 经验知识中的客观性与视角
IF 1.7 2区 哲学
Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2007-01-30 DOI: 10.1353/epi.0.0005
R. Kukla
{"title":"Objectivity and Perspective in Empirical Knowledge","authors":"R. Kukla","doi":"10.1353/epi.0.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/epi.0.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Epistemologists generally think that genuine warrant that is available to anyone must be available to everyone who is exposed to the relevant causal inputs and is able and willing to properly exercise her rationality. The motivating idea behind this requirement is roughly that an objective view is one that is not bound to a particular perspective. In this paper I ask whether the aperspectivality of our warrants is a precondition for securing the objectivity of our claims. I draw upon a Sellarsian account of perception in order to argue that it is not; rather, inquirers can have contingent properties and perspectives that give them access to forms of rational warrant and objective knowledge that others do not have. The universal accessibility of reasons, on my account, is not a precondition for the legitimacy of any actual warrant, but rather a regulative ideal governing inquiry and communication.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"22 1","pages":"80 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2007-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76810357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
Masking Disagreement among Experts 掩盖专家之间的分歧
IF 1.7 2区 哲学
Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2006-06-01 DOI: 10.1353/EPI.0.0001
J. Beatty
{"title":"Masking Disagreement among Experts","authors":"J. Beatty","doi":"10.1353/EPI.0.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/EPI.0.0001","url":null,"abstract":"There are many reasons why scientific experts may mask disagreement and endorse a position publicly as \"jointly accepted.\" In this paper I consider the inner workings of a group of scientists charged with deciding not only a technically difficult issue, but also a matter of social and political importance: the maximum acceptable dose of radiation. I focus on how, in this real world situation, concerns with credibility, authority, and expertise shaped the process by which this group negotiated the competing virtues of reaching consensus versus reporting accurately the nature and degree of disagreement among them.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"106 1","pages":"52 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74271884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58
首页 上一页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：481959085
Book学术官方微信