知识的种类和认知还原

A. Shevchenko
{"title":"知识的种类和认知还原","authors":"A. Shevchenko","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-43-50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article provides a brief analysis of the current debate on the two types of knowledge – knowledge-how and knowledge-that and discusses the possibility of reduction of the former to the latter. Two promising anti-reductionist strategies are highlighted. The first strategy uses the notion of “epistemic luck” to demonstrate that the epistemic characteristics of these two kinds of knowledge differ. The second strategy can be based on M. Dewitt’s treatment of linguistic knowledge, which, if accepted, at least deprives the proponents of epistemic reductionism of claims to the universality of their position.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kinds of knowledge and epistemic reduction\",\"authors\":\"A. Shevchenko\",\"doi\":\"10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-43-50\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article provides a brief analysis of the current debate on the two types of knowledge – knowledge-how and knowledge-that and discusses the possibility of reduction of the former to the latter. Two promising anti-reductionist strategies are highlighted. The first strategy uses the notion of “epistemic luck” to demonstrate that the epistemic characteristics of these two kinds of knowledge differ. The second strategy can be based on M. Dewitt’s treatment of linguistic knowledge, which, if accepted, at least deprives the proponents of epistemic reductionism of claims to the universality of their position.\",\"PeriodicalId\":240316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Siberian Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Siberian Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-43-50\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2023-21-1-43-50","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文简要分析了目前关于“怎样的知识”和“怎样的知识”两类知识的争论,并探讨了将前者还原为后者的可能性。强调了两种有希望的反还原论策略。第一种策略使用“认知运气”的概念来证明这两种知识的认知特征是不同的。第二个策略可以基于德威特对语言知识的处理,如果被接受,它至少剥夺了认识论还原论的支持者对其立场的普遍性的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kinds of knowledge and epistemic reduction
The article provides a brief analysis of the current debate on the two types of knowledge – knowledge-how and knowledge-that and discusses the possibility of reduction of the former to the latter. Two promising anti-reductionist strategies are highlighted. The first strategy uses the notion of “epistemic luck” to demonstrate that the epistemic characteristics of these two kinds of knowledge differ. The second strategy can be based on M. Dewitt’s treatment of linguistic knowledge, which, if accepted, at least deprives the proponents of epistemic reductionism of claims to the universality of their position.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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