David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49 (2004)
A common objection raised against naturalism is that a naturalized epistemology cannot account for the essential normative character of epistemology. Following an analysis of different ways in which this charge could be understood, it will be argued that either epistemology is not normative in the relevant sense, or if it is, then in a way which a naturalized epistemology can account for with an instrumental and hypothetical model of normativity. Naturalism is here captured by the two doctrines of empiricism and gradualism. Epistemology is a descriptive discipline about what knowledge is and under what conditions a knowledge-claim is justified. However, we can choose to adopt a standard of justification and by doing so be evaluated by it. In this sense our epistemic practices have a normative character, but this is a form of normativity a naturalized epistemology can make room for. The normativity objection thus fails. However, in the course of this discussion, as yet another attempt to clarify the normativity objection, such a naturalistic model will be contrasted with Donald Davidson’s theory of interpretation. Even though this comparison will not improve upon the negative verdict upon the original objection, it will be argued that naturalism cannot accept Davidson’s theory since it contains at least one constitutive principle – the principle of charity – whose epistemic status is incompatible with the naturalistic doctrine of gradualism. So, if this principle has this role, then epistemology cannot be naturalized.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Xiaofei Tian & Tong Wu (2009). The Philosophy of Scientific Practice in Naturalist Thought: Its Approaches and Problems. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (4):589-603.
Similar books and articles
Anandi Hattiangadi (2006). Is Meaning Normative? Mind and Language 21 (2):220-240.
Chase Wrenn (2004). Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.
Marcin Miłkowski (2010). Making Naturalised Epistemology (Slightly) Normative. In Konrad Talmont-Kaminski & Marcin Miłkowski (eds.), Beyond Description. Naturalism and Normativity.
Elisabeth Pacherie (2002). Naturalistic Epistemologies and Normativity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):299-317.
Sharyn Clough (2004). Having It All: Naturalized Normativity in Feminist Science Studies. Hypatia 19 (1):102-118.
Wybo Houkes (2002). Normativity in Quine's Naturalism: The Technology of Truth-Seeking? [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (2):251-267.
Chase Wrenn (2006). Epistemology as Engineering? Theoria 72 (1):60-79.
M. Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49.
Added to index2009-12-23
Total downloads19 ( #89,058 of 1,101,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #116,934 of 1,101,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?