David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Principia 8 (2):193-211 (2004)
The question as to the appropriate method of epistemic analysis has always been an issue for epistemologists. In recent years, the traditional method utilized in epistemology - conceptual analysis - has come under attack from various perspectives. Yet, often no replacement method is given in its place. In two works, "A Practical Explication of Knowledge" and Knowledge and the State of Nature, Edward Craig proposes a new way of doing epistemology. Craig's epistemic method eschews traditional conceptual analysis in favor of what he calls "conceptual synthesis". He proposes we start not from the finding of necessary and sufficient conditions that match our intuitions; rather we start from considerations on what the concept of knowledge does for us. Though there is much to discuss in Craig proposal, in this paper I explore one aspect - the good informant. It is this aspect that is central to Craig's epistemic method and perhaps most problematic. In this essay, I evaluate this concept by first articulating three initial worries that some have had about the concept. I show that each of the initial worries can be quelled by looking deeper into the features of what Craig's proposal is. I then assess Craig's proposal on its own terms. Instead of looking to counterexamples for possible problems, I look at the concept of a good informant in light of the criteria for an adequate explication. What I hope to show is that while there is much to be sympathetic with in Craig's proposal, there are some open questions that need to be solved in order to say that an adequate explication has been reached.
|Keywords||Epistemology Edward Craig Knowledge State of Nature Practical Explication|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
James McBain (2005). Epistemological Practice and the Internalism/Externalism Debate. Facta Philosophica 7 (2):283-291.
Michael Hannon (2013). The Practical Origins of Epistemic Contextualism. Erkenntnis 78 (4):899-919.
Edward Craig (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford University Press.
Melissa Lane (1999). States of Nature, Epistemic and Political. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (2):211–224.
Christoph Kelp (2011). What's the Point of "Knowledge" Anyway? Episteme 8 (1):53-66.
Christoph Kelp (2013). A Practical Explication of the Knowledge Rule of Informative Speech Acts. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):367-383.
Edward Craig (1986). The Practical Explication of Knowledge. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 87:211 - 226.
Chris Calvert-Minor (2011). “Epistemological Communities” and the Problem of Epistemic Agency. Social Epistemology 25 (4):341 - 360.
Miranda Fricker (1998). Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a Truly Social Epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):159–177.
M. Oreste Fiocco (2007). Conceivability and Epistemic Possibility. Erkenntnis 67 (3):387 - 399.
David B. Myers (2003). Rejoinder to William Lane Craig. Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430.
Pieranna Garavaso & Nicla Vassallo (2003). On the Virtues and Plausibility of Feminist Epistemologies. Epistemologia, Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Della Scienza (1):99-131.
Frank Hofmann (2004). Why Epistemic Contextualism Does Not Provide an Adequate Account of Knowledge: Comments on Barke. Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):375 - 382.
Andoni Ibarra & Thomas Mormann (1988). La Explicación Del Concepto de Reducción. Theoria 4 (1):139-161.
Added to index2010-10-05
Total downloads32 ( #64,324 of 1,679,365 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,917 of 1,679,365 )
How can I increase my downloads?