Lockie, Robert (2016) Response to Elqayam, Nottelmann, Peels and Vahid on my paper ‘Perspectivism, deontologism and epistemic poverty’. Social Epistemology, 5 (3). pp. 21-47. ISSN 2471-9560
Lockie Social Ep Response to commentators as published with corrections.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 12 September 2017.
Download (483kB) | Request a copy
I here respond to four SERRC commentators on my paper ‘Perspectivism, Deontologism and Epistemic Poverty’: Shira Elqayam, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Rik Peels and Hamid Vahid. I maintain that all accounts of epistemic justification must be constrained by two limit positions which have to be avoided. One is Conceptual Limit Panglossianism (an excessively subjective, ‘emic’, ‘bounded’ and ‘grounded’, relativistic perspectivism, whereby anything the epistemic agent takes to be justified, is). The other is Conceptual Limit meliorism (an excessively objective, ‘etic’, ‘unbounded’, ‘ungrounded’, absolutism, whereby the fundamental normative-epistemic notion of justification is wholly divorced from regulative, human, capacities). Within these bounds one may offer an account of rationality or epistemic justification that is closer to Meliorism or Panglossianism. Remarked upon are my respondents’ considerations on Alston, on suggestions for a separation between a more-subjective epistemic
justification and a more-objective rationality, and objections to my position based on the assumption that we must embrace a very objective and truth-conducive concept of epistemic justification.
|Depositing User:||Bob Lockie|
|Date Deposited:||15 Jun 2016 09:24|
|Last Modified:||19 Aug 2016 12:20|
Actions (login required)