David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Issues 14 (1):271–295 (2004)
Epistemic relativism rejects the idea that claims can be assessed from a universally applicable, objective standpoint. It is greatly disdained because it suggests that the real ‘basis’ for our views is something fleeting, such as ‘‘the techniques of mass persuasion’’ (Thomas Kuhn 1970) or the determination of intellectuals to achieve ‘‘solidarity’’ (Rorty 1984) or ‘‘keep the conversation going’’ (Rorty 1979). But epistemic relativism, like skepticism, is far easier to despise than to convincingly refute, for two main reasons. First, its definition is unclear, so we cannot always tell where relativism leaves off and other views, such as skepticism or subjectivism, begin. Consequently, it can be difficult to tell when a criticism has done enough. Second, the grounds for relativism are unclear, which can make it hard to know how to attack it or whether we have dismantled all of the ways of supporting it.
|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
R. Rorty (1981). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Laurence BonJour (1998). In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Steven Bland (2013). Scepticism, Relativism, and the Structure of Epistemic Frameworks. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (4):539-544.
Roger White (2007). Epistemic Subjectivism. Episteme 4 (1):115-129.
Steven Bland (2014). Incommensurability, Relativism, and the Epistemic Authority of Science. Episteme 11 (4):463-473.
Howard Sankey (2014). On Relativism and Pluralism: Response to Steven Bland. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 47:98-103.
Similar books and articles
Christian Miller (2002). Rorty and Moral Relativism. European Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):354–374.
Harold Zellner (1995). “Is Relativism Self-Defeating?”. Journal of Philosophical Research 20:287-295.
Alvin Goldman (2009). Epistemic Relativism and Reasonable Disagreement. In Richard Feldman & Ted Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. OUP
Steven D. Hales (ed.) (2011). A Companion to Relativism. Wiley-Blackwell.
Duncan Pritchard (2009). Defusing Epistemic Relativism. Synthese 166 (2):397-412.
Berit Brogaard (2008). The Trivial Argument for Epistemic Value Pluralism. Or How I Learned to Stop Caring About Truth. In Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press
Howard Sankey (2010). Witchcraft, Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion. Erkenntnis 72 (1):1 - 16.
Ram Neta (2007). In Defense of Epistemic Relativism. Episteme 4 (1):30-48.
Howard Sankey (2011). Epistemic Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):562-570.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads91 ( #44,949 of 1,796,170 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #98,825 of 1,796,170 )
How can I increase my downloads?