Graduate studies at Western
Acta Analytica 20 (1):55-80 (2005)
|Abstract||The paper argues that the use of epistemic terms, prominently “… knows” and even “… knows a priori/a posteriori” is context-sensitive along several dimensions. Besides the best known dimension of quality of evidence (lower quality for less demanding context, and higher one for more demanding), there is a dimension of depth (shallow justification for superficial evaluation, and deeper justification for deeper probing evaluation contexts). This claim is illustrated by context-dependent ascription of apriority and aposteriority. The argument proposed here focuses upon the status of propositions that are analytic in empirical concepts (like “Whales are animals”). It is a commonplace in epistemology that any analytic proposition (including e-analytic ones) is a priori. The paper claims that propositions analyzing empirical concepts are an interesting counterexample. It develops the following argument: Many such propositions have empirical counterparts that are expressed by the same form-of-words. (E.g., the form of words “Whales are mammals” can express both an e-analytic proposition and an empirical statement.) They normally derive from their empirical counterparts. Beliefs in such propositions, can be explicitly justified either a priori, by pointing out their conceptual, analytic status, or by reverting to their empirical counterparts. In contexts of very superficial evaluation, one may justify such an analytic belief in the first, conceptual way. In most contexts a belief in a proposition analyzing an empirical concept is being justified by appeal to its empirical counterparts. The empirical justification is normally taken as being ultimate. Empirical counterparts are derivationally deeper than the corresponding analytic propositions, and empirical justification is deeper than a priori one as well. Therefore, propositions analyzing empirical concepts are deeply a posteriori and superficially a priori.|
|Keywords||A priori contextualism analyticity concepts testimony memory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Cian Dorr (2012). De Re A Priori Knowledge. Mind 120 (480):939-991.
Robert A. Holland (1992). Apriority and Applied Mathematics. Synthese 92 (3):349 - 370.
Peter Achinstein (1995). Are Empirical Evidence Claims a Priori? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):447-473.
Juraj Hvorecký (2006). Appropriating A Priori. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):113-120.
Chen Bo (2011). Proper Names, Contingency A Priori and Necessity A Posteriori. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (2):119 - 138.
Glen Hoffmann (2011). Two Kinds of A Priori Infallibility. Synthese 181 (2):241-253.
Derk Pereboom (1990). Kant on Justification in Transcendental Philosophy. Synthese 85 (1):25 - 54.
Nenad Miscevic (2001). Science, Commonsense and Philosophy: A Defense of Continuity (a Critique of "Network Apriorism"). International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (1):19 – 31.
Nenad Miščević (2005). Empirical Concepts and A Priori Truth. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):289-315.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,562 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,863 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?