Erkenntnis 75 (3):303-324 (2011)

Authors
Thomas Sturm
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
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
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10670-011-9338-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,480
External links

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

Epistemology and Cognition.Alvin I. Goldman - 1986 - Harvard University Press.
Mind and World.John McDowell - 1994 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Historical Ontology.Ian Hacking - 2002 - Harvard University Press.
Objectivity.Lorraine Daston - 2007 - the Mit Press.

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Love of Neuroscience: A Sociological Account.Gabriel Abend - 2018 - Sociological Theory 36 (1):88-116.
Objectivity, Historicity, Taxonomy.Joeri Witteveen - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (3):445-463.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Plea for a Historical Epistemology of Research.Hans-Jörg Rheinberger - 2012 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (1):105-111.
The Tribunal of Philosophy and its Norms: History and Philosophy in Georges Canguilhem's Historical Epistemology.C. Chimisso - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):297-327.
Epistemology Dehumanized.Panayot Butchvarov - 2008 - In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press. pp. 301.
Epistemology in an Age of Cognitive Science.Robert N. McCauley - 1988 - Philosophical Psychology 1 (2):143-152.
Systems-Oriented Social Epistemology.Alvin Goldman - 2010 - Oxford Studies in Epistemology 3:189-214.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-11-03

Total views
123 ( #72,688 of 2,330,708 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #194,262 of 2,330,708 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes