Historical Epistemology or History of Epistemology? The Case of the Relation Between Perception and Judgment
Erkenntnis 75 (3):303-324 (2011)
|Abstract||This essay aims to sharpen debates on the pros and cons of historical epistemology, which is now understood as a novel approach to the study of knowledge, by comparing it with the history of epistemology as traditionally pursued by philosophers. The many versions of both approaches are not always easily discernable. Yet, a reasoned comparison of certain versions can and should be made. In the first section of this article, I argue that the most interesting difference involves neither the subject matter nor goal, but the methods used by the two approaches. In the second section, I ask which of the two approaches or methods is more promising given that both historical epistemologists and historians of epistemology claim to contribute to epistemology simpliciter . Using traditional problems concerning the epistemic role of perception, I argue that the historical epistemologies of Wartofsky and Daston and Galison fail to show that studying practices of perception is philosophically significant. Standard methods from the history of epistemology are more promising, as I show by means of reconstructing arguments in a debate about the relation between perception and judgment in psychological research on the famous moon illusion|
|Keywords||Epistemology History of Epistemology Historical Epistemology Objectivity Perception Judgment|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barry Stroud (2011). Epistemology, the History of Epistemology, Historical Epistemology. Erkenntnis 75 (3):495-503.
Uljana Feest & Thomas Sturm (2011). What (Good) is Historical Epistemology? Editors' Introduction. Erkenntnis 75 (3):285-302.
Steve Fuller (1987). On Regulating What is Known: A Way to Social Epistemology. Synthese 73 (1):145 - 183.
Michael Heidelberger (2011). Causal and Symbolic Understanding in Historical Epistemology. Erkenntnis 75 (3):467-482.
Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (2012). A Plea for a Historical Epistemology of Research. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (1):105-111.
Siegel Susanna & Silins Nicholas (forthcoming). The Epistemology of Perception (Short Version). In Mohan Matthen (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Perception. Oxford.
C. Chimisso (2003). The Tribunal of Philosophy and its Norms: History and Philosophy in Georges Canguilhem's Historical Epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (2):297-327.
Cassandra L. Pinnick (1994). Feminist Epistemology: Implications for Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):646-657.
Panayot Butchvarov (2008). Epistemology Dehumanized. In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press.
Susanna Siegel & Nicholas Silins (forthcoming). The Epistemology of Perception. In Mohan Matthen (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception. Oxford.
Robert N. Mccauley (1988). Epistemology in an Age of Cognitive Science. Philosophical Psychology 1 (2):143-152.
Stephen H. Phillips (2004). Epistemology of Perception: Ganṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi: Jewel of Reflection on the Truth (About Epistemology), the Perception Chapter (Pratyakṣa-Khaṇḍa). American Institute of Buddhist Studies.
F. H. George (1957). Epistemology and the Problem of Perception. Mind 66 (October):491-506.
Mary Tiles (2011). Is Historical Epistemology Part of the 'Modernist Settlement'? Erkenntnis 75 (3):525-543.
Added to index2011-11-03
Total downloads37 ( #32,520 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?