1,721,055 research outputs found
Belief and testimonial belief
Full text linkThis paper inquires into the justification of testimonial beliefs and attempts to resolve a dilemma for reductionist and anti-reductionist theories of testimonial justification recently proposed by John Greco. Specifically, the paper purports to demonstrate that Greco's Craigean solution to the dilemma is flawed and put forth an alternative solution that includes all the advantages of Greco's approach and avoids its weaknesses by appealing to the role of pragmatic factors in the attribution of testimonial justification
Epistemologia delle virtù
Full text linkIn this entry, I offer a critical analysis of virtue epistemology, which is a fundamental collection of recent approaches to epistemology. After a few remarks on the roots of this view, I reconstruct the key features of the two main accounts of virtue epistemology and I discuss how these accounts respond to some traditional epistemological challenges. Questo contributo propone una disamina critica dell’epistemologia delle virtù, una delle correnti più importanti della teoria della conoscenza contemporanea. Dopo un breve affondo sulle origini di questa corrente, vengono analizzate le caratteristiche dei due approcci fondamentali all’epistemologia delle virtù e le risposte che essi offrono ad alcuni problemi epistemologici tradizionali
Il potenziale educativo degli esemplari intellettuali
No full textThis paper explores the educational potential of epistemic exemplars, namely those individuals who possess intellectual virtues to an exceptional degree. It purports to do so by applying the exemplarist framework proposed by Linda Zagzebski in her Exemplarist Moral Theory (2017) to the domain of intellectual virtues. After a brief summary of the main features of her view, I explain how the exemplarist dynamics can apply to the intellectual domain. Then, I introduce the basics of an exemplar-based account of education and explain how it can be employed to educate the young to intellectual virtues. Finally, I attempt to show how this model can accommodate several objections and, in particular, how it addresses the charge of indoctrinating the students raised by proponents of a critical thinking approach to education
Teorie dei vizi. Un analisi critica
No full textThis paper offers a critical analysis of the current debate in vice theory. Its main aim is to pro- vide the reader with the conceptual and methodological tools to navigate the discussion among reliabilist, responsibilist, and obstructivist approaches to moral and epistemic vices. After a brief exploration of the reasons underlying the recent flourishing of vice theories (§2), the re- sponsibilist account is introduced (§3) and several critical remarks are offered to ensure that this view can accommodate the cases of malevolent and indifferent individuals (§4). The two following sections are devoted to a critical discussion of vice-reliabilism (§5) and Quassim Cas- sam’s obstructivism (§6). The conclusive section (§7) provides reasons to favor vice- responsibilism over vice-reliabilism and Heather Battaly’s pluralist approach, and sheds light on the innovative features of an obstructivist reading
Epistemic Rights, Moral Rights, and The Abuse of Perceived Epistemic Authority
No full textThis contribution discusses two aspects of Watson’s account of epistemic rights: namely, the nature of epistemic rights, and a particular form of epistemic rights violation that Watson calls the abuse of perceived epistemic authority. It is argued that Watson’s take on both aspects is unsatisfactory, and some suggestions for an alternative view are offered
Di chi posso fidarmi. Autorità ed esperti nella filosofia analitica contemporanea
No full textMolte questioni aperte che interessano la nostra società e ci fanno preoccupare per il futuro ruotano intorno a un problema fondamentale: capire chi sia davvero esperto in un determinato ambito e, di conseguenza, decidere di chi possiamo fidarci. È inevitabile che ognuno di noi debba riporre la propria fiducia in altri individui quando si tratta di questioni quali il riscaldamento globale e la tutela dell’ambiente, le terapie mediche a cui sottoporsi, la sicurezza informatica e l’istruzione dei propri figli. Ma come dovremmo scegliere le persone a cui affidarci? E cosa dobbiamo fare quando il parere dell’esperto si discosta dalla nostra opinione? Il libro si propone di rispondere a queste domande offrendo una chiave di lettura originale e innovativa dell’attuale dibattito sulle nozioni di esperto e di autorità nella filosofia della conoscenza e nella filosofia morale di matrice analitica
The Epistemology of Disagreement
Full text linkArticle Summary. The epistemology of disagreement studies the epistemically relevant aspects of the interaction between parties who hold diverging opinions about a given subject matter. The central question that the epistemology of disagreement purports to answer is how the involved parties should resolve an instance of disagreement. Answers to this central question largely depend on the epistemic position of each party before disagreement occurs. Two parties are equally positioned from an epistemic standpoint—namely, they are epistemic peers—to the extent that they have roughly equal access to the evidence and comparable intellectual resources. When one party is epistemically better positioned than the other—that is, when one is an epistemic superior—it is widely agreed that this party should retain their belief while the other party—the epistemic inferior—should revise their opinion in the direction of what the epistemic superior believes. Addressing the central question is a complex task when the disagreeing parties are epistemic peers. Three main answers can be distinguished. Conciliatory answers mandate that both parties revise—i.e. lower their confidence in—their beliefs upon the occurrence of peer disagreement. Steadfast answers allow both parties to retain their respective beliefs, thereby committing them to demote the epistemic position of the interlocutor. The third group of answers suggests that the solution to peer disagreement depends on whether either party is highly justified in holding their belief. If either party is highly justified, then it is rational that this party retains its view. If neither party is highly justified, both should revise. The epistemology of disagreement addresses further important questions such as: whether the occurrence of disagreement opens the doors to skepticism and/or relativism; what the consequences of epistemic disagreement on intellectual character are; what laypeople should do when experts disagree with each other; and whether disagreement among groups can be treated in the same way as disagreement among individuals
Epistemologia morale
No full textQuesto contributo propone un’introduzione critica all’epistemologia morale, una delle discipline emergenti tra metaetica e teoria della conoscenza. Le sezioni centrali sono dedicate alle tre seguenti questioni: se sia possibile acquisire conoscenza morale; come – ovvero, attraverso quali fonti – sia possibile acquisire conoscenza morale; infine, quali indicazioni l’epistemologia morale trae dai progressi delle scienze empirich
- …
