恶习与知识

Quassim Cassam
{"title":"恶习与知识","authors":"Quassim Cassam","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198826903.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s dogmatism paradox and Kuhn’s view that dogmatism can play a positive role in normal science. This chapter argues that the supposed epistemic benefits of dogmatism have been greatly exaggerated and its epistemic drawbacks underestimated. The appropriate response to the claims of Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists is not to avoid or ignore them but to rebut them. Knowers have responsibilities, including the responsibility not to dismiss challenges to their beliefs without good reason.","PeriodicalId":431978,"journal":{"name":"Vices of the Mind","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vice and Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Quassim Cassam\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198826903.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s dogmatism paradox and Kuhn’s view that dogmatism can play a positive role in normal science. This chapter argues that the supposed epistemic benefits of dogmatism have been greatly exaggerated and its epistemic drawbacks underestimated. The appropriate response to the claims of Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists is not to avoid or ignore them but to rebut them. Knowers have responsibilities, including the responsibility not to dismiss challenges to their beliefs without good reason.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vices of the Mind\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vices of the Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198826903.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vices of the Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198826903.003.0005","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

本章讨论了与大卫·休谟和索尔·克里普克有关的观点,即假定的教条主义的认知缺陷可以在保护我们的知识方面发挥积极作用。论述了克里普克的教条主义悖论和库恩关于教条主义在常规科学中可以发挥积极作用的观点。本章认为,教条主义在认识论上的好处被大大夸大了,而它在认识论上的缺点被低估了。对大屠杀否认者和其他阴谋论者的说法的适当回应不是回避或忽视它们,而是反驳它们。知者有责任,包括不能在没有充分理由的情况下无视对他们信仰的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vice and Knowledge
This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s dogmatism paradox and Kuhn’s view that dogmatism can play a positive role in normal science. This chapter argues that the supposed epistemic benefits of dogmatism have been greatly exaggerated and its epistemic drawbacks underestimated. The appropriate response to the claims of Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists is not to avoid or ignore them but to rebut them. Knowers have responsibilities, including the responsibility not to dismiss challenges to their beliefs without good reason.
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