一种面向语用认识论的外在主义决策理论

Brian Kim
{"title":"一种面向语用认识论的外在主义决策理论","authors":"Brian Kim","doi":"10.4324/9781315168197-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, some epistemologists have argued that practical factors can make the difference between knowledge and mere true belief. While proponents of this pragmatic thesis have proposed necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, it is striking that they have failed to address Gettier cases. As a result, the proposed analyses of knowledge are either lacking or susceptible to counterexamples. Gettier cases are worth reflecting on because they raise foundational questions for the pragmatist. Underlying these challenges is the fact that pragmatic epistemologies not only rely upon normative theories of rational choice but also require externalist standards to rule out epistemic luck. Unfortunately, we lack adequate externalist theories of rational choice. Thus, the main aim of the paper is to address these foundational challenges by offering the outlines of an externalist decision theory. While this task is an ambitious one that I cannot hope to complete, I will offer the outlines of a decision-theoretic framework on which a richer pragmatic epistemology can be developed. My hope is that this framework opens up new avenues of pragmatic exploration.","PeriodicalId":243573,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Externalist Decision Theory for a Pragmatic Epistemology 1\",\"authors\":\"Brian Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315168197-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, some epistemologists have argued that practical factors can make the difference between knowledge and mere true belief. While proponents of this pragmatic thesis have proposed necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, it is striking that they have failed to address Gettier cases. As a result, the proposed analyses of knowledge are either lacking or susceptible to counterexamples. Gettier cases are worth reflecting on because they raise foundational questions for the pragmatist. Underlying these challenges is the fact that pragmatic epistemologies not only rely upon normative theories of rational choice but also require externalist standards to rule out epistemic luck. Unfortunately, we lack adequate externalist theories of rational choice. Thus, the main aim of the paper is to address these foundational challenges by offering the outlines of an externalist decision theory. While this task is an ambitious one that I cannot hope to complete, I will offer the outlines of a decision-theoretic framework on which a richer pragmatic epistemology can be developed. My hope is that this framework opens up new avenues of pragmatic exploration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":243573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315168197-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315168197-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

近年来,一些认识论家认为,实际因素可以区分知识和纯粹的真实信念。虽然这一实用主义论点的支持者提出了知识的必要和充分条件,但令人惊讶的是,他们未能解决格蒂埃案例。因此,所提出的知识分析要么缺乏,要么容易受到反例的影响。这些案例值得反思,因为它们为实用主义者提出了一些基本问题。这些挑战背后的事实是,实用主义认识论不仅依赖于理性选择的规范理论,而且还需要外部主义标准来排除认知运气。不幸的是,我们缺乏充分的理性选择的外部主义理论。因此,本文的主要目的是通过提供外部主义决策理论的概述来解决这些基本挑战。虽然这是一项雄心勃勃的任务,我不希望完成,但我将提供一个决策理论框架的轮廓,在这个框架上可以发展出更丰富的实用认识论。我希望这一框架为务实探索开辟新的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Externalist Decision Theory for a Pragmatic Epistemology 1
In recent years, some epistemologists have argued that practical factors can make the difference between knowledge and mere true belief. While proponents of this pragmatic thesis have proposed necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, it is striking that they have failed to address Gettier cases. As a result, the proposed analyses of knowledge are either lacking or susceptible to counterexamples. Gettier cases are worth reflecting on because they raise foundational questions for the pragmatist. Underlying these challenges is the fact that pragmatic epistemologies not only rely upon normative theories of rational choice but also require externalist standards to rule out epistemic luck. Unfortunately, we lack adequate externalist theories of rational choice. Thus, the main aim of the paper is to address these foundational challenges by offering the outlines of an externalist decision theory. While this task is an ambitious one that I cannot hope to complete, I will offer the outlines of a decision-theoretic framework on which a richer pragmatic epistemology can be developed. My hope is that this framework opens up new avenues of pragmatic exploration.
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