英语论文网

Taken together these developments undermine traditional authority in virtually every field, precisely as Nietzsche predicted (and from which he feared anarchic consequences would flow). This impact, particularly that of relativism, has significantly impacted recent epistemological thinking. What is epistemological relativism? Siegel’s definition: Knowledge (K) that P (and/or truth (T)) is relative to time (t), to place (p), to society (s), to historical epoch (h), to conceptual scheme or framework (f), and personal training and/or conviction (c) , so what counts as knowledge always depends on the values of these variables. But this is pretty uncontentious as a definition of when something is counted as knowledge (or counted as true). It does not tell us that knowledge is relative. So, look instead at Stephen Stich’s definition: (see Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy On-Line www.rep.com/ ) “… an account of what makes a system of reasoning or belief revision is a good one is relative if it is sensitive to facts about the person or group using the system.”  Absolutism (on this view) is that there is a uniquely correct (albeit possibly not yet reached) system of belief revision for any given field of inquiry. But as Feldman points out, this is surely incorrect. What do you think?

3. Quine and the Under-Determination of Theories by Data.

• A Reminder of the Failure of Cartesian Foundationalism. Descartes attempted to bridge the gap between sense data (our sensory ‘inputs’ – the subjective sense impressions (sensory sensations) that are the data from which we infer the character of our immediate physical environment, and that physical environment itself. The problem is, what justifies us in getting from the data to the conclusion (that I am in the vicinity of such and such physical objects, which are causing these data in me)? His answer was – the certainty (on account of his putative proof of it) of the existence of a perfect God who would not allow me to be deceived. But if, as most believe, Descartes’ ‘proof’ is fallacious, how do we solve the problem?

• The Inductive ‘Solution’. The inference from sense data to objectivity is justified on this occasion because it has nearly always worked in the past (nearly, because there have been occasional e.g. optical illusions etc.). So, it is a textbook example of a pretty reliable inductive inference. (Nearly all prior cases of A have turned out to be B, so, in this case …) But how do we know any of the past cases have turned out to be right? How could we ever get behind the sense data to verify objective presence? All we get are more sense data! We are perpetually ‘trapped’ within them. Conclusion, we should therefore be thoroughly sceptical about the existence of an objective world (a world of independently existing perceptible entities). In short, we cannot claim to know the truth of any of our ‘common sense’ beliefs, because these beliefs have no credible justification. Therefore, they cannot serve as a foundation for anything else.

• The Reductionist ‘Solution’. The dot point above shows we have failed to bridge the gap between subjectivity and objectivity. The Reductionist contends there is no gap to be bridged. The physical objects we claim to perceive are nothing but logical constructions out of my (and yours, and everyone else’s) sense data. The sense data are not evidence of the presence of p本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。