David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30 (1):131-153 (1999)
This paper examines the question whether foundational epistemology (“FE”) can be replaced by naturalized epistemology (“NE”). First, it argues that Quine's defense of NE is inadequate since it is only based on arguments showing the impossibility of the logical empiricist version of FE rather than on arguments for the impossibility of FE as such. Second, it proposes that a more promising argument for the impossibility of FE can be found in the Münchhausen-trilemma which aims at showing that ultimate foundations (and, hence, FE) are unattainable. However, Karl-Otto Apel has shown that this trilemma is unconclusive since it uncritically presupposes the premise that all argumentation is deductive in nature. Apel's argument implies that FE is possible if and only if it is possible to devise a non-deductive foundation (“NDF”). It is argued, however, that the possibility of NDF cannot be demonstrated. This leads to a situation called the Multatuli-dilemma: we cannot prove the possibility of ultimate foundations nor can we prove the impossibility of ultimate foundations. This dilemma shows that the discussion about the possibility of FE is pointless. Thus, it suggests that it is legitimate to replace FE by NE. Barry Stroud and Henri Lauener, however, argue that this replacement is not feasible since NE is not capable of refuting scepticism (Stroud) or justifying methodological rules (Lauener). But these objections are shown to be mistaken: First, epistemological scepticism is practically impossible and, hence, does not pose a serious threat to NE. Second, NE is capable of justifying methodological norms if and only if it makes use of so-called internal justifications. Thus, the final conclusion of this paper is that FE can be replaced by NE.
|Keywords||foundational epistemology naturalized epistemology Münchhausen-trilemma ultimate foundations deduction non-deductive foundations scepticism justification of methodological norms W.V.O. Quine, R. Carnap|
|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
Jeff Malpas (1994). Self-Knowledge and Scepticism. Erkenntnis 40 (2):165-184.
Cheng-Hung Tsai (2002). Generalizing and Normalizing Quine's Epistemology. Philosophical Writings 19:3-21.
Christopher Hookway (1994). Naturalized Epistemology and Epistemic Evaluation. Inquiry 37 (4):465 – 485.
A. Rosenberg (1999). Naturalistic Epistemology for Eliminative Materialists. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (2):335-358.
Karol Polcyn (2006). Conceivability, Possibility, and a Posteriori Necessity: On Chalmers' Argument for Dualism. Diametros 7 (March):37-55.
András Kertész (2002). On the de-Naturalization of Epistemology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (2):269-288.
Leila Haaparanta (1999). On the Possibility of Naturalistic and of Pure Epistemology. Synthese 118 (1):31-47.
Dirk Koppelberg (1996). Was Macht Eine Erkenntnistheorie Naturalistisch? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 27 (1):71 - 90.
Danilo Zolo (1990). Reflexive Epistemology and Social Complexity: The Philosophical Legacy of Otto Neurath. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20 (2):149-169.
Richard F. Kitchener (2007). Bertrand Russell's Naturalistic Epistemology. Philosophy 82 (1):115-146.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #195,623 of 1,679,326 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #112,111 of 1,679,326 )
How can I increase my downloads?