认识论作为语用探究:罗蒂、哈克与教育中的学术相对主义

IF 0.9 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kenneth Driggers, Deron Boyles
{"title":"认识论作为语用探究:罗蒂、哈克与教育中的学术相对主义","authors":"Kenneth Driggers, Deron Boyles","doi":"10.1007/s11217-023-09909-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a post-Trump, post-Covid-19 world, it is clear that truth is contested by fake news outlets and misinformation. Less clear is how to navigate the vicissitudes of intersectional discourse without devolving into a Richard Rortyan relativism that denies truth altogether. This paper considers the epistemic commitments of foundationalism and coherentism before turning to pragmatist Susan Haack to explore whether there are convergences between the two. The goal of this paper is three-fold: (1) to clarify how truth and fact feature in foundationalist and coherentist epistemic thinking; (2) to offer a pragmatist “foundherentist” intersection between foundationalism and coherentism; and (3) to use (1) and (2) to highlight the untenable position Rortyan relativism represents, specifically in relation to education formally understood.</p>","PeriodicalId":47069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","volume":"51 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemology as Pragmatic Inquiry: Rorty, Haack, and Academic Relativism in Education\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth Driggers, Deron Boyles\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11217-023-09909-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In a post-Trump, post-Covid-19 world, it is clear that truth is contested by fake news outlets and misinformation. Less clear is how to navigate the vicissitudes of intersectional discourse without devolving into a Richard Rortyan relativism that denies truth altogether. This paper considers the epistemic commitments of foundationalism and coherentism before turning to pragmatist Susan Haack to explore whether there are convergences between the two. The goal of this paper is three-fold: (1) to clarify how truth and fact feature in foundationalist and coherentist epistemic thinking; (2) to offer a pragmatist “foundherentist” intersection between foundationalism and coherentism; and (3) to use (1) and (2) to highlight the untenable position Rortyan relativism represents, specifically in relation to education formally understood.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"volume\":\"51 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Philosophy and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09909-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Philosophy and Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09909-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在后特朗普时代、后新冠肺炎时代,很明显,真相受到假新闻媒体和错误信息的质疑。不太清楚的是,如何驾驭交叉话语的变迁,而不沦为完全否认真理的理查德·罗蒂(Richard Rortyan)相对主义。本文首先考察了基础主义和连贯主义的认识论承诺,然后转向实用主义者苏珊·哈克,探讨两者之间是否存在趋同。本文的目的有三个:(1)阐明真理和事实在基础主义和连贯主义认知思维中的特征;(2)在基础主义和连贯主义之间提供实用主义的“基础主义”交叉点;(3)使用(1)和(2)来强调罗蒂相对主义所代表的站不住脚的立场,特别是与正式理解的教育有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemology as Pragmatic Inquiry: Rorty, Haack, and Academic Relativism in Education

In a post-Trump, post-Covid-19 world, it is clear that truth is contested by fake news outlets and misinformation. Less clear is how to navigate the vicissitudes of intersectional discourse without devolving into a Richard Rortyan relativism that denies truth altogether. This paper considers the epistemic commitments of foundationalism and coherentism before turning to pragmatist Susan Haack to explore whether there are convergences between the two. The goal of this paper is three-fold: (1) to clarify how truth and fact feature in foundationalist and coherentist epistemic thinking; (2) to offer a pragmatist “foundherentist” intersection between foundationalism and coherentism; and (3) to use (1) and (2) to highlight the untenable position Rortyan relativism represents, specifically in relation to education formally understood.

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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Studies in Philosophy and Education is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the philosophical, theoretical, normative and conceptual problems and issues in educational research, policy and practice. As such, Studies in Philosophy and Education is not the expression of any one philosophical or theoretical school or cultural tradition. Rather, the journal promotes exchange and collaboration among philosophers, philosophers of education, educational and social science researchers, and educational policy makers throughout the world. Contributions that address this wide audience, while clearly presenting a philosophical argument and reflecting standards of academic excellence, are encouraged. Topics may range widely from important methodological issues in educational research as shaped by the philosophy of science to substantive educational policy problems as shaped by moral and social and political philosophy and educational theory. In addition, single issues of the journal are occasionally devoted to the critical discussion of a special topic of educational and philosophical importance. There is also a frequent Reviews and Rejoinders’ section, featuring book review essays with replies from the authors.
×
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