Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 149/150
Alvin Goldman/knowledge/BrandomVsGoldman: Goldman's theory paved the way for the reliability theories, but it is a two-edged sword with regard to naturalized epistemology.
>Epistemology naturalized, >Reliability theory.
For his example, it is important that we assume that the causal chain is an ideal one.
II 151-155
For example barn facades: one can imagine the facades of the province as embedded in a country with real barns, this in turn embedded in a state with facades, embedded in a continent with real facades, these on a planet with facades, this in turn embedded in a planet system with real barns and so on.
Whether it is about knowledge when seeing a real barn, is then completely dependent on the choice of the reference class. The closest reference class is then highly reliable.
There is much to be said against genuine knowledge. This reveals the inadequacy of classical internalism of justification.
But e.g. twin earth/Brandom: a modern internalist could claim that the "internal states" are the same. All they have in common is that the subject cannot keep them apart.
>Internalism, >Externalism, >Twin Earth.
McDowell: but this fact does not have to be considered sufficient to identify their contents!
>Content, >Identification.
Goldman/Brandom: overall, the presence of barn façades in the area is causally irrelevant.
II 152
Barn facades/Goldman: the candidate is not a reliable perceiver of barns.
Brandom: the special thing about this case is that the circumstances are external.
>Circumstances .
BrandomVsGoldman: "Goldman's insight", however, does not support the naturalized epistemology because the knowledge is completely dependent on the choice of the reference class. An argument place therefore remains empty.
>Knowledge, >Causal theory of knowledge.
It depends on how we describe the convinced: as a member of the country, of the federal state, etc. And that would be precisely the naturalistically formulated facts. They then lead to different judgments about the reliability of the observer.
Brandom: situations like those of the example can quite possibly arise. From this follows the:
definition "blind spot" of the reliability theories/Brandom: whether or not an observer is reliable is dependent on the choice of reference classes (barn province), and thus on external circumstances which have nothing to do with the observed object.
>Reference classes, >Blind spot.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.