This is a republication of 'Hegeby Zanin' in a second country for the use on international philosophy students and researchers in non English language, combines two epistemology books ; classic epistemology and social epistemology.

In my response, I initially defend my preference for classical Critical Theory, emphasizing its continued relevance in capitalist modernity, stressing that the epistemological approach does not imply dogmatism with regards to scientific theory or Historical Materialism, just as it does not imply closure with regards to political democracy. When it comes to the dialectics of the classics, I also defend an epistemological approach, arguing that the dialectics aiming for truth implies critique and negativity. However, confronted with the duality of transcendental (...) ideas and historical relativity, I express my confidence in human intuition. Following Hegel, determinate negation must sublate the intuitively conceived universality to a new conception that contains the result of the negation. Finally, I do not see how the conceptual aporias of general economy can be solved by the current political degrowth project. Still, politics is what we need more of, namely social democracy. (shrink)

This article argues that Robert Brandom's work can be used to develop ideas in the area of social epistemology. It suggests that this work, precisely because it was influenced by Hegel, can make a significant contribution with philosophical anthropology at its centre. The argument is developed using illustrations from education: the first, from the now classic replication of Piaget's ‘three mountains task’ by Margaret Donaldson and her colleagues; the second, from contemporary debates about the questions of knowledge (...) and epistemic access. This leads to a series of questions concerning the relation of concepts to each other and to objects of knowledge and to the social dimension of epistemology as it is involved in the development of human capacities. (shrink)

In this paper, the author analyzes and discusses the communicative approach used in the philosophy of science developed by N. Luhmann. He shows how Luhmann's communicative approach can be used to discuss a wide range "the classical problems" of knowledge: criteria for scientific knowledge, its autonomy and tools for achieving it, the problem of the foundation and structure of the scientific knowledge, the relationship between concepts and words, theories and methods.The author also analyzes the problem of the communication constraints imposed (...) on the process of systematic organization of science (i.e. the delimitation principle): the specificity and opportunity of the social theory, its differences and similarities with the settled classic examples of the theorizing; the peculiarities of the particular types of the scientific observation. (shrink)

This paper lays the groundwork for normative-yet-naturalistic social epistemology. I start by presenting two scenarios for the history of epistemology since Kant, one in which social epistemology is the natural outcome and the other in which it represents a not entirely satisfactory break with classical theories of knowledge. Next I argue that the current trend toward naturalizing epistemology threatens to destroy the distinctiveness of the sociological approach by presuming that it complements standard psychological and (...) historical approaches. I then try to reassert, in Comtean fashion, the epistemologist's credentials in regulating knowledge production. Finally, I consider how social epistemology may have something exciting and relevant to say about contemporary debates in the theory of knowledge. (shrink)

In this paper, the author analyzes and discusses the communicative approach used in the philosophy of science developed by N. Luhmann. He shows how Luhmann's communicative approach can be used to discuss a wide range "the classical problems" of knowledge: criteria for scientific knowledge, its autonomy and tools for achieving it, the problem of the foundation and structure of the scientific knowledge, the relationship between concepts and words, theories and methods.The author also analyzes the problem of the communication constraints imposed (...) on the process of systematic organization of science (i.e. the delimitation principle): the specificity and opportunity of the social theory, its differences and similarities with the settled classic examples of the theorizing; the peculiarities of the particular types of the scientific observation. (shrink)

Until the late twentieth century social epistemology was a neglected subject. Alvin Goldman was one of the first epistemologists to recognize its importance, and, in a series of essays, he provided a conception of how social epistemology should be pursued and applied that conception to particular cases. Knowledge in a Social World develops the conception more systematically, and considers a broad range of social practices. The scope of Goldman’s discussion and the characteristic clarity with (...) which he approaches the issues make this book the first classic in the field. (shrink)

Because reasoning allows us to justify our beliefs and evaluate these justifications it is central to folk epistemology. Following Sperber, and contrary to classical views, it will be argued that reasoning evolved not to complement individual cognition but as an argumentative device. This hypothesis is more consistent with the prevalence of the confirmation and disconfirmation biases. It will be suggested that these biases render the individual use of reasoning hazardous, but that when reasoning is used in its natural, argumentative, (...) context they can represent a smart way to divide labor without loosing epistemic value. (shrink)

This book argues for evolutionary epistemology and distinguishing functionality from physicality in the social sciences. It explores the implications for this approach to understanding in biology, economics, psychology and political science. Presenting a comprehensive overview of philosophical topics in the social sciences, the book emphasizes how all human cognition and behavior is characterized by functionality and complexity, and thus cannot be explained by the point predictions and exact laws found in the physical sciences. Realms of functional complexity (...) – such as the market order in economics, the social rules of conduct, and the human CNS – require a focus on explanations of the principles involved rather than predicting exact outcomes. This requires study of the historical context to understand behavior and cognition. This approach notes that functional complexity is central to classical liberal ideas such as division of labour and knowledge, and how this is a far more powerful and adequate account of social organization than central planning. Through comparison of these approaches, as well as its interdisciplinary scope, this book will interest both academics and students in philosophy, biology, economics, psychology and all other social sciences. (shrink)

The article summarizes the main developments in virtue epistemology and reacts to the challenges faced by the discipline. This new trend in analytic epistemology emerges as a synthesis of a number of directions (metaethics, social epistemology, metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy). On the one hand, it attempts to overcome some weaknesses of classical epistemology and, on the other hand, it performs this on the same basis, retaining the classical understanding of knowledge as justified true belief. It (...) was dubbed “virtue epistemology” since it focuses on restoration of the normative approach and on the opposition to Quine’s naturalism. It explores intellectual virtues like epistemology explores knowledge claims though emphasizing their subject-dependent nature. It is the cognitive agent who provides a foundation for intellectual virtues no matter whether they are understood as cognitive ability or mental traits. However, the most researchers take epistemic virtues as individual mental states available through introspection, and the entire analysis in fact boils down to the articulation of virtue intuitions in the cognitive process. For those intuitions, thought experiments serve as a test simulating everyday cognitive situations. Still, in the context of virtue epistemology some alternative approaches arise, contributing significant revisions to the subject matter and the methods of analytical epistemology. A collective agent replaces an individual one, and knowledge engages in an integral subject-object and subject-subject context. Normativism mitigates its opposition to naturalism, enabling the utilization of the empirical data from the social sciences and humanities. As a result, a dialogue of virtue epistemology with the philosophy and ethics of science gets the chance. (shrink)

The impact of social factors upon the philosophical investigations in a broad sense is quite evident. Nevertheless their impact upon epistemology as a branch of philosophy, logic, and history of science as fields of research with noticeable philosophical content is not evident enough. We are keen to claim that this impact exists within some limits, although it is not so overtly evident. Moreover in the case of Marxism it is of a paradoxical nature. Marxism always puts the accent (...) on the role of social and economic factors in the development, development of science included. To a large extent due to Marxism, externalism emerged; the key idea of externalism may be expressed through the statement that social and economic reasons are the main sources of development of science. B.M. Hessen declared and did his best in 1931 to justify this statement through the example of the emergence of classical mechanics. Meanwhile the social milieu of Marxist countries placed a taboo on the externalist approach towards epistemology, the interpretation of logic, and history of science. All these fields of knowledge were evolved in the Marxist era in the USSR and Eastern Europe - despite the spirit of Marxism - within strict internalist boarders. We offer the explanation of this contradiction. (shrink)

According to the article, Neurath's reflexive epistemology—expressed by the metaphor of the ship in need of reconstruction on the open sea—represents a philosophical alternative to the classical and contemporary forms of scientific realism and ethical cognitivism, including Popper's falsificationism. Against Quine's reductive interpretation of Neurath's boat argument as the basis for a 'naturalized epistemology,' the article maintains that the metaphor suggests the idea of an insuperable situation of linguistic and conceptual circularity. This prevents any attempt at self-foundation in (...) scientific knowledge, as well as in ethics and politics, and rules out any 'constructive philosophy' aiming to break circularity in pursuit of some methodological beginning. (shrink)

Epistemology, I will argue, is of crucial importance to the sociology of knowledge— not just by way of definition of the phenomenon under study, but also because approaches to the sociology of knowledge rely on too-often implicit epistemological stances. I will make this argument through a series of categorizations: first, I will classify the field of epistemology into its three main forms; second, I will classify the sociology of knowledge into epistemological categories; third, I will classify the sociology (...) of science into these same categories. All the while, I will be making an argument for an empirical epistemology and "agnostic" studies of knowledge. This article does not cover the field of epistemology exhaustively, but tries to offer an orderly overview of classic positions for the benefit of social scientists. (shrink)

Since Protagoras' classic “man is the measure of all things,” claims of relativism and counter-claims have been tendered. The nineteenth century saw Durkheim, Levy-Bruhl, Westermarck, Pareto, Marx, and others, suggesting that institutions, customs, moral codes, and the like, are “relative” both to the culture and to the time. At the crest of this wave of “relativism” surged a vicious claim: that truth and knowledge itself were merely functions of particular conditions. The “validity” of knowledge was said to be at (...) the whim of historic, social factors. Not only is no theory really true; no particular statement is ever so. Not only is no theory or statement really true; no theory of knowledge has thus far ever been free from the bias of its genesis. There have been no absolute insights for epistemology. Or so, at least, it was claimed. (shrink)

In this article, we argue that a critical examination of epistemological and anthropological presuppositions might lead to a more fruitful use of theory in clinical-ethical practice. We differentiate between two views of conceptualizing ethics, referring to Charles Taylors' two epistemological models: ‘monological’ versus ‘dialogical consciousness’. We show that the conception of ethics in the model of ‘dialogical consciousness’ is radically different from the classical understanding of ethics in the model of ‘monological consciousness’. To reach accountable moral judgments, ethics cannot be (...) conceptualized as an individual enterprise, but has to be seen as a practical endeavor embedded in social interactions within which moral understandings are being negotiated. This view has specific implications for the nature and the role of ethical theory. Theory is not created in the individual mind of the ethicist; the use of theory is part of a joint learning process and embedded in a cultural context and social history. Theory is based upon practice, and serves practical purposes. Thus, clinical ethics support is both practical and theoretical. (shrink)

The uncertain epistemological status of charisma is largely due to its polysemy and polymorphism. Max Weber thematizes it in a variety of contexts and meanings — distinguishing between magical, religious charisma and the charisma of reason, highlighting the trajectories of routinization and objectification of charisma, typologizing different types of prophecies. In turn, the multiple (re)actualizations of this “brilliant concept” [Rose] as reinforcements of their own theories in the form of varieties of symbolic capital, resonance, the everyday, the re-personalized, or the (...) risky charisma lead to either semantic compression or the blurring of meaning, both within sociological theory and in interdisciplinary discourse. To define the scientific content of charisma, the authors propose to thematize it in historical macrosociology. The key question is addressed to the interdisciplinary connections in Weber's intellectual heritage — is the category “charisma” attributable to Weber the historian or Weber the sociologist? The clarification of the epistemological status of charisma, expressed in its dual character (phenomenon vs. ideal type), becomes possible thanks to the discussion of a corpus of the classic texts by two prominent German Weberologists - W. Schlüchter and F. Tenbruck. In its turn, the reconstruction and systematization of approaches of Weberian historical macrosociology allows us to clarify the boundaries and possibilities of the category's application. Thus, the evolutionary-theoretical perspective defines the heuristic potential of charisma in terms of reflecting the dynamics of cultural and value orientations in the process of emergence and consolidation of social order and institutional structures. The comparative-historical approach, in turn, defines the relationship between the analytical and empirical levels of Weber's sociology through the “immersion” of an ideal-typical construct in a real historical narrative. In this way, historical macrosociology overcomes the most valid criticisms (S. Turner) of the category's failure, heterogeneity, and its residual character. (shrink)

While the earlier work of Philip Kitcher, in particular The Advancement of Science (1993), continues to inform his more recent studies, such as Science, Truth, and Democracy (2001), there are significant "changes of opinion" from those articulated in the 1990s. One may even speak of two different stages in the configuration of epistemological proposals. An analysis, from an empiricist standpoint, of the shifts between one and the other indicates further evolution towards realist positions but much more modest ones than those (...) previously endorsed. Kitcher qualifies former individualism with an ensuing defence of pluralism, vital to his effort to develop a social epistemology. The present centrality of the achievement of a well-ordered science , one that promotes the common good within the context of democracies, encapsulates recent variation in the work of Kitcher and may be considered one of the author's most defendable proposals, even including its classically empiricist resonance. (shrink)

This volume presents 38 classic texts in formal epistemology, and strengthens the ties between research into this area of philosophy and its neighbouring intellectual disciplines. The editors provide introductions to five subsections: Bayesian Epistemology, Belief Change, Decision Theory, Interactive Epistemology and Epistemic Logic. 'Formal epistemology' is a term coined in the late 1990s for a new constellation of interests in philosophy, the origins of which are found in earlier works of epistemologists, philosophers of science and (...) logicians. It addresses a growing agenda of problems concerning knowledge, belief, certainty, rationality, deliberation, decision, strategy, action and agent interaction - and it does so using methods from logic, probability, computability, decision and game theory. The volume also includes a thorough index and suggestions for further reading, and thus offers a complete teaching and research package for students as well as research scholars of formal epistemology, philosophy, logic, computer science, theoretical economics and cognitive psychology. (shrink)

In this paper the authors, starting from the experience described and commented on in earlier work by Mancini and Sbordone, deal with the three main epistemological problems that the research group they participated in had to face:The conflicting and ambiguous relationship between psychoanalysis and social researchThe classical epistemological problem of the relationship between the subject and object of research within the perspective of action researchThe problem arising from their experience, i.e., the risk of manipulation, and the way to deal (...) with it from an epistemic perspectiveThe three problems are dealt with one at a time, but from a common perspective, i.e., the attempt to integrate the richness and variety of human subjectivity in social research. As to the relationship between psychoanalysis and social research, a special section is devoted to the implications of an integrated or convergent methodology on team-working in organisations. (shrink)

The way metrologists conceive of measurement has undergone a major shift in the last two decades. This shift can in great part be traced to a change in the statistical methods used to deal with the expression of measurement results, and, more particularly, with the calculation of measurement uncertainties. Indeed, as we show, the incapacity of the frequentist approach to the calculus of uncertainty to deal with systematic errors has prompted the replacement of the customary frequentist methods by fully Bayesian (...) procedures. The epistemological ramifications of the Bayesian approach merge with a deep empiricist mood tantamount to an “epistemic turn”: measurement results are analysed in terms of degrees of belief, and central concepts such as error and accuracy are called into question. We challenge the perspective entailed by this epistemic turn: we insist on the centrality of the concepts of error and accuracy by underlining the intentional character of measurement that is intimately linked to the process of correction of experimental data. We further circumvent the difficulties posed by the classical analysis of measurement by stressing the social rather than the epistemic dimension of measurement activities. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with the role of self-observation in managing complexity in meaning systems. Revising Niklas Luhmann's theory of mass media, we approach the mass media system as a social sub-system functionally specialized in the coupling of psychic systems' self-observation and social systems' self-observation.According to Autopoietic Systems Theory and von Foerster's second order cybernetics, self-observation presupposes a capability for meta-observation that demands a specific distinction between observer and actor. This distinction seems especially relevant in those social (...) contexts where a separation between the action of observation and other social actions is required. However, in those social contexts where the defining action is precisely observation, the border between observer and actor is blurred.We shall consider the significant divergence between the implicit and the explicit epistemologies of the mass media system, which appears to be characterized by the explicit assumption of a classic objectivist epistemology, on one side, and a relativist epistemology on the other, posing a hybrid epistemic status somewhere in between science and arts. (shrink)

In this paper I make a distinction between some characteristic features of human activity which not only challenge the possibility of being explained (reduced) in terms of cause and effect relationship, or by universal regularities, but which assign an element of interpretation and understanding to every human activity. My aim is to demonstrate that it is not the understanding that is submitted to scientific explanation but that every scientific explanation contains the component of interpretation and is evaluated from the viewpoint (...) of our everyday, pre-reflexive being in the world and commonly (often implicite) accepted contexts and assumptions. In other words, we have to constantly refer to the existing background—a network of unspecifiable beliefs and practices. I would like to point out, after Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus, that the responsible epistemology of the humanities must overcome a series of assumptions of modern and contemporarycognitive theory which appeared to be surprisingly congruent with the classic thinking paradigm concerning natural sciences. Last but not least, I would like to prove, relying upon involved epistemology or hermeneutic proto-epistemology, the possibility of mutual symbiotic relationship between the perspective of natural sciences and the humanities. (shrink)

The ecofeminist cosmologies of Indian scientist Vandana Shiva and Catholic theologian Ivone Gebara are examined. At the centre of each author’s discourse is their feminist epistemology that occasion a new way of knowing, incorporating each thinker’s social locations as nexus for authority. For Shiva, the feminine principle of Prakriti, or the awareness of nature as a living, interdependent force, is realized through the inclusion of women as sources of expertise and knowledge. Gebara rejects classical theology and philosophy as (...) androcentric, anthropocentric, and hierarchical. Instead Gebara envisions a revised epistemology of inclusivity with emphasis on multiplicity and unity initiated by an ecofeminist Trinitarian cosmology. Taken together Shiva and Gebara provide an epistemology that privileges the paradox of unity through diversity and difference as a solution to society’s current ecological crises. (shrink)

The article is dedicated to the study of the relationship between the diversity of the world of knowledge and the world of man. The role of knowledge in human life is shown, the mechanism of its influence on the human world is revealed, the diversity of knowledge in the context of plurality of language images is revealed, the relationship of such philosophical disciplines as epistemology and philosophical anthropology, which deal with the problems of knowledge and man, respectively, is clarified. (...) It is shown that сurrently, scientists are concerned about knowledge that corresponds to all the canons of classical rationality and yet turns out to be deeply irrational in its moral indifference regarding its use. It is substantiated that the times of classical rationalist euphoria from the success of science are over and it is time to reject the enlightenment illusions about science as a ‘panacea’ for all social ills. The discrimination of pre- and out-scientific knowledge does not meet the modern requirements of the new epistemology. Some anthropological and humanistic parameters of cognition are highlighted, and an attempt is made to offer a certain anthropological view of the world as a whole. It is shown that the turn from epistemology to ontology, which took place in the philosophical thought of the twentieth century, does not mean that epistemology has exhausted the possibilities of its development and should withdraw from the historical arena or relegated to the periphery of philosophical research. Moreover, nowadays we are increasingly talking about a cognitive or epistemological turn in philosophy. Classical epistemology is being replaced by various variants of modern non-classical epistemology, such as the cognitive approach, various versions of modern philosophy and sociology of science and anthropology of cognition, evolutionary and social epistemology, etc. The leading feature that defines and unites these areas of non-classical epistemologies is their anthropologisation, which testifies to the inextricable connection of such philosophical disciplines as epistemology and philosophical anthropology. (shrink)

The emphasis on the limitations of objectivity, in specific guises and networks, has been a continuing theme of contemporary analytic philosophy for the past few decades. The popular sport of baiting feminist philosophers — into pointing to what's left out of objective knowledge, or into describing what methods, exactly, they would offer to replace the powerful objective methods grounding scientific knowledge — embodies a blatant double standard which has the effect of constantly putting feminist epistemologists on the defensive, on the (...) fringes, on the run.This strategy can only work if objectivity is transparent, simple, stable, and clear in its meaning. It most certainly is not. In fact, taking objectivity as a sort of beautiful primitive, self-evident in its value, and all-powerful in its revelatory power, requires careless philosophy, and the best workers in metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science have made reworked definitions of objectivity absolutely central to their own projects. In fact, classic feminist concerns with exploring the impact of sex and gender on knowledge, understanding, and other relations between human beings and the rest of the world fall squarely within the sort of human and social settings thatare already considered central in most current analytic metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. I argue that the burden of proof is clearly on those who wish toreject the centrality and relevance of sex and gender to our most fundamental philosophical work on knowledge and reality. (shrink)

For several decades now a set of researches from a wide range of different sectors has been developed which goes by the name of “science of complexity” and is opposed point by point to the paradigm of classical science. It challenges the idea that world is “simple.” To the reductionist idea that each process is the sum of the actions of its components it opposes a holistic view. The aim of the present article is to analyze the epistemological status attributed (...) in the science of complexity to several fundamental ideas, such as those of scientific law, objectivity, and prediction. The aim is to show that the hope of superseding reductionism by means of concepts such as that of “emergence” is fallacious and that the science of complexity proposes forms of reductionism that are even more restrictive than the classical ones, particularly when it claims to unify in a single treatment problems that vary widely in nature such as physical, biological, and social problems. (shrink)

The Nahdlatul Ulama are important parts that greatly value the inheritance of the classical Islamic treasures contained in the work of the Imam Mazhab. Its wealth of sources of understanding, NU has its own uniqueway of responding to reform, while maintaining harmony in tradition and cultural heritage, moderate, tolerant, not extreme, as well as promoting goodness and preventing badness. This paper examines the positioning of NU and its relation to Ahlussunnah wa al-Jama‘ah based on the social context that accompanies (...) it and the actors involved in it. There are three locus, places, or cultural fields that have important significance because they are a source of discourse, ideas and practices of mazhab in contemporary NU communities: Pesantren, Islamic College and Non-Governmental Organization. This paper uses three approaches: Thomas Kuhn’s Shifting Paradigm, Karl Manheim’s Sociology of Knowledge and Abed al-Jabiri’s Epistemology are used to study knowledge that is not only the result of theory, but also part of the process of sociology and epistemology. The results show that the majority of Pesantren when understanding and interpreting Aswaja An-Nahdliyyah are heavier and dominant based on Bayani and Irfani. Whereas the scholar of NU and NGOs that had been Bayani and Irfani shifted to Burhani’s epistemological model. In other words, methodologically they want a change in understanding Aswaja from qauli to manhaji, Bayani-Irfani to Burhani,monolithic-dichotomic to integrative-progressive. (shrink)

The theoretical work of European and American structuralism has produced a number of important elements which have resulted in (especially with respect to certain new, fundamental approaches in semantics, philosophy and methodology) essential shifts in the modes of thinking in the humanities, and in the cultural and social sciences. Despite these shifts, Western discourses have still not produced any integral, coherent structural model of epistemology. The present article intends to show that such a model can be found in (...) the pan-structural epistemology of the modern Chinese philosopher Zhang Dongsun (1886?1973), and that the crucial, theoretical underpinnings of such models were developed much earlier in the history of Chinese thought, given that the bases of a structural approach to comprehension had already been established in ancient Chinese philosophy. This paradigmatic foundation (the concept li) was further developed and elaborated by various Chinese philosophers in later centuries as a crucial feature of the classical Chinese logic of binary analogies. The article also points out that the central binary concept of the Neo-Confucian tradition (i.e. the concept of structure and creativity; li and qi) has generally been interpreted as a dualism of idea and matter by Euro-American sinologists. However, such interpretations have overlooked an important feature of traditional, structurally determined Chinese onto-epistemology. (shrink)

In the classical era, imagination garnered poor press: fooling the senses, perverting judgment, subverting reason, skewing social relations, and generally providing wrong ideas about the way things are; it was a faculty of which to beware. Occasionally it was recognized as not being entirely without value—Descartes, for example, insisted on its great usefulness as a figurational function in simplifying the work of the understanding in geometry. The traditional tendency in philosophy, though, was to denigrate imagination for its misleading nature (...) and negative effects and to dwell on its limits as a faculty bound to the body. Indeed, its first function is to represent to the mind things previously perceived by the senses as images in their likeness. But as imagination has neither the same vividness nor the same order as sensation, it is potentially misleading, since in fact images look only approximately the same as their models. Above all, however, imagination was reproached to be potentially misleading for its second function, the creation of images or entire fictions bearing no relation whatsoever to reality, which made it dangerously capable of nourishing all manner of superstition and fantasy. Within such a context, Berkeley’s conception of the imagination hardly seems original at first glance. But as I will propose, in its creative guidance of reason, imagination plays an important and distinctive role in Berkeley’s scientific, moral, and religious discussions. Rather than focusing solely on the representational character of imagination, then, I suggest that we attend also to the way in which Berkeley appeals to the imaginative aspects of reason itself. In this way, we can better appreciate the educational presuppositions of human freedom. (shrink)

Subject & Object is a thematic collection of classic works by Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, designed to foreground the authors' philosophical concerns, especially in the areas of epistemology, ontology, and method. The volume, which includes lucid introductions to all of the selections, illustrates Frankfurt School approaches to questions such as the nature of reason; the limits of empiricism, pragmatism and Kantian transcendental idealism; the case for materialism; the difficulty of thinking counterfactually; and the ideological character (...) of mainstream social science. Many of the pieces in the volume are otherwise out of print. Subject & Object will be a resource for social, political, and cultural theorists who may be less familiar with the philosophical aspects of the Frankfurt School, for analytic philosophers who may not have had previous exposure to their work at all, and for anyone wanting access to these seminal texts. (shrink)

The paper presents four stages of author’s epistemological experience: Roman Ingarden’s autonomous theory of knowledge, the anti-naturalistic theory of knowledge by Roderick Chisholm, the naturalistic epistemology by Alvin Goldman, and the epistemology of classical problems of truth and skepticism. The conclusion is the following: epistemology should make use of human knowledge results, especially cognitive sciences and reflect on the problem of truth, the challenge of skepticism, the possibility of knowledge and human cognitive condition (science, religion, art). The (...) social role of the epistemologist is not to resolve all these existentially important questions but to be an expert (to know the state of discussion and to deliver his/her opinions). (shrink)

Uncertainty can’t be understood without taking into account both properties of the problem situation and agent’s knowledge about it. The correspondence of knowledge and situation of decision-making is crucial for understanding the onto-epistemological nature of uncertainty. At the same time, this correspondence is the key topic in virtue epistemology, especially in its ‘non-classical’, regulatory, branch, related to works of R. Roberts and W.J. Wood. In this article, genetic consultation is chosen as an example of such a problematic situation since (...) a doctor and a patient explicitly deal with the uncertainty of genetic risks. The problems of communication and joint decision-making in the context of medical-genetic consultation are comprehensively described in bioethics. At the same time, its social dimension is limited to the direct interaction of two individual agents, that allows us to use it as a model for constructing the ethics of uncertainty. In this article, four forms of uncertainty are identified: descriptive, normative and radical uncertainties, and translation uncertainty. Referring to the approaches of virtue epistemology, the author brings each of these forms into conformity with the proposed regulatory principle. The regulations assume that generating or disseminating knowledge under conditions of uncertainty require taking into account the incompleteness of the presented model of reality in its four aspects. A modelled fragment of reality could change in a predictable (descriptive uncertainty) or unexpected (radical uncertainty) way. The goals and values of a model’s user can not be hierarchically ordered, and may also change in the future (normative uncertainty). User’s interpretations of the model may be diverse, and can never be strictly defined by the intentions of the model’s author (indeterminancy of translation, or uncertainty whether success of co-reference is achieved). (shrink)

Under the influence of naturalistic approaches, contemporary philosophy of science tends to characterize scientific objectivity not by virtue of the individualistic following of rules or satisfying epistemic utilities, but as a property arising from the organisational features of groups. This paper presents a critical review of one such proposal, that of Helen Longino, probing some of its main features against the debate between Pasteur and Pouchet in mid-nineteenth-century France regarding the spontaneous generation of life. After considering some weaknesses and strengths, (...) it is argued that Longino’s social epistemology is only able to generate normativity by implicitly assuming a classic procedural notion of epistemic acceptability. The paper also aims to use this historical case to shed light on the complex, multidimensional nature of the dynamics of actual science, arguing both against purely epistemic and exclusively social approaches in a satisfactory meta-scientific explanation of controversies. (shrink)

A certain decline of epistemology in terms of the “naturalized programmes” or the post-modernist discussions makes us think about the form, in which epistemological studies in a broad sense of the word are still possible as a sphere of philosophical analysis. Philosophy of knowledge is nowadays shaken on its throne, which it has occupied for a long time as a theoretical core of philosophy, and perhaps even dismissed from it. The partial loss of orientation by those who are professionally (...) involved in this sphere is the consequence of this state of affairs. This also concerns social epistemology - an influential modern trend, whichnowadays is balancing between neoclassic (A. Goldman1) and non-classic (D. Bloor2), normative and descriptive, veritistic and constructionist approaches. Among all, there are two terminologically different though in fact similar proposals: naturalization and socialization. Within social epistemology, both lead to a kind of interdisciplinary imperialism reducing epistemology to a “positive science” like sociology of knowledge, social history of science, science and technology studies or social psychology of cognitive process. We shall call this attitude “strong version” of naturalism keeping in mind “strong program of Edinburgh School in the sociology of scientific knowledge” (B. Barnes, D. Bloor3). How can we save then philosophical epistemology without indulging into purely transcendentalcontemplations and at the same time securing its connections with empirical sciences? A “weak version” of naturalism is proposed, namely, an idea of social epistemology based on interdisciplinarity. Therefore a special analysis of interdisciplinarity concept is needed. (shrink)

The article aims at providing grounds for the analysis of the confrontation of scientific views in the context of E. Agassi’s famous thesis: “science is always socially engaged, but it should not be socially dependent”. This socio-epistemological analysis focuses on the clash between Lysenko’s interpretation of the Lamarckian methodology of H. Spencer’s views and representatives of the Russian school of classical Mendelian genetics. A distinctive feature of Akademgorodok in the 1970s-1980s was that almost every academic institute had a person responsible (...) for organizing a specialized scientific-methodological seminar on philosophical and methodological problems of a particular field of knowledge. Recollections of the participants of these seminars and reconstruction of the issues discussed at that time are rich empirical material, providing an opportunity to test modern conceptions in the field of social anthropology, social epistemology, and sociology of science. The revival of genetics in our country began with the founding of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences/SB RAS. It is shown that this confrontation between Lamarckism and Mendelism in 1930s-1960s develops from the denial of the theses of the ideological opponents to the emergence of accompanying interdisciplinary research. At the same time, a special role is given to the specification of the methodological function of philosophy and to those forms of its realization that scientists personally participating in scientific-methodological seminars, were more inclined to associate with “substantive” rather than “sociological” aspects of the description of the situation. (shrink)

This collection of 17 articles offers an overview of the philosophical activities of a group of philosophers (who have been) working at the Groningen University. The meta-methodological assumption which unifies the research of this group, holds that there is a way to do philosophy which is a middle course between abstract normative philosophy of science and descriptive social studies of science. On the one hand it is argued with social studies of science that philosophy should take notice of (...) what scientists actually do. On the other hand, however, it is claimed that philosophy can and should aim to reveal cognitive patterns in the processes and products of scientific and common sense knowledge. Since it is thought that those patterns can function as guidelines in new research and/or in research in other disciplines, philosophy can nevertheless hold on to the normative aim which is characteristic of 'classical' philosophy of science. Compared to this common assumption, there is a diversity of subjects. Some papers deal with general problems of science, knowledge, cognition and argumentation, others with topics relating to foundational problems of particular sciences. Therefore this volume is of interest to philosophers of science, to philosophers of knowledge and argumentation in general, to philosophers of mind, as well as for scientists working in the physical and applied sciences, biology, psychology and economy who are interested in the foundations of their disciplines. After a foreword by Leszek Nowak and a general introduction by the editors, the book is divided into four parts, with special introductions. - I: Conceptual Analysis in Service of Various Research Programmes (Henk Zandvoort, Rein Vos, Rick Looijen, Gerben Stavenga, Renée Dalitz); - II: The Logic of the Evaluation of Arguments, Hypotheses, Default Rules, and Interesting Theorems (Erik Krabbe, Theo Kuipers, Alfons Keupink, Maarten Janssen/Yao-Hua Tan, Bert Hamminga); - III: Three Challenges to the Truth Approximation Programme (Sjoerd Zwart, Hinne Hettema/Theo Kuipers, Roberto Festa); - IV: Explicating Psychological Intuitions (Anne-Ruth Mackor, Jeanne Peijnenburg, Lex Guichard, Michel ter Hark). The Groningen research group was recently qualified, by an official international assessment committee, as one of the best philosophy research groups in the Netherlands. (shrink)

Social Epistemology today is argued to allow an adequate formulation of questions for exploring the issues in the process of scientific cognition. A formulation of such questions is claimed to have been impossible in the framework of classical thinking. One such issue is claimed to be the theme of transhumanism which moved from the realm of science fiction to the sphere of rational discussion. The author argues that today philosophers and scientists are discussing the question whether material objects, (...) both natural and man-made, can think. Obviously, the author continues, we cannot assume that the thinking of man-made devices is human. Material carriers of programs also differ radically by the type of their materiality from the human body and brain. But, the man is also changing in his communication with the machine, adapting to it. The process of thinking itself is argued to have become different, especially given that an increasing number of organs of the human body are now replaced with artificial ones. The author states that today one of the central problems of philosophy is what would result from such humanization of machines and mechanization of humans. This problem is argued to be open. (shrink)

We give a review and critique of jury theorems from a social-epistemology perspective, covering Condorcet’s (1785) classic theorem and several later refinements and departures. We assess the plausibility of the conclusions and premises featuring in jury theorems and evaluate the potential of such theorems to serve as formal arguments for the ‘wisdom of crowds’. In particular, we argue (i) that there is a fundamental tension between voters’ independence and voters’ competence, hence between the two premises of most (...) jury theorems; (ii) that the (asymptotic) conclusion that ‘huge groups are infallible’, reached by many jury theorems, is an artifact of unjustified premises; and (iii) that the (nonasymptotic) conclusion that ‘larger groups are more reliable’, also reached by many jury theorems, is not an artifact and should be regarded as the more adequate formal rendition of the ‘wisdom of crowds’. (shrink)

Most commentators agree that the study of war and collective violence remains the Achilles heel of sociology. However, this apparent neglect is often wrongly attributed to the classics of social thought. This article contests such a view by arguing: (1) that many classics were preoccupied with the study of war and violence and have devised complex concepts and models to detect and analyse its social manifestations; and (2) most of the classical social thought was in fact sympathetic (...) to the ‘militarist’ understanding of social life. In many respects, classical social thought shared the analytical, epistemological and even moral universe that understood war and violence as the key mechanisms of social change. The structural neglect of this rich and versatile theoretical tradition is linked to the hegemony of the normative ‘pacifist’ re-interpretation of the classics in the aftermath of two total wars of the twentieth century. The author argues that the contemporary sociology of war and violence can gain much by revisiting the key concepts and ideas of the classics. (shrink)

Social Epistemology today is argued to allow an adequate formulation of questions for exploring the issues in the process of scientific cognition. A formulation of such questions is claimed to have been impossible in the framework of classical thinking. One such issue is claimed to be the theme of transhumanism which moved from the realm of science fiction to the sphere of rational discussion. The author argues that today philosophers and scientists are discussing the question whether material objects, (...) both natural and man-made, can think. Obviously, the author continues, we cannot assume that the thinking of man-made devices is human. Material carriers of programs also differ radically by the type of their materiality from the human body and brain. But, the man is also changing in his communication with the machine, adapting to it. The process of thinking itself is argued to have become different, especially given that an increasing number of organs of the human body are now replaced with artificial ones. The author states that today one of the central problems of philosophy is what would result from such humanization of machines and mechanization of humans. This problem is argued to be open. (shrink)

Classic epistemology is under manifold changes; its categories loose their traditional meanings and gain new ones. Civilization and cultural changes, especially in mass communication and scientific knowledge, make impossible to insist on the concept of knowledge entirely as a true and justified belief. Traditional concepts of individual and subjectivistically conceived agent as well as concept of objects (areas and domains) of human knowledge are to much restrictive and at the same time controversial. Epistemological (pure philosophical) meaning of them (...) is constantly confronted and changed by the scientific discoveries and definitions, coming especially from natural and social sciences (biology, neural sciences, psychology and social sciences). It is long-lasting and manifold process of naturalization that regards not only cognitive phenomena but epistemic categories and epistemological theories as well. The papers presents the concise model of the naturalized theory of human knowledge one can eliminate from different positions and theories. Today types of naturalized epistemology try to go beyond the strict and limited concept of naturalism (Quine’s naturalized epistemology) and go toward anti-scientific, more liberal understanding of it. Naturalizing epistemology opens, as it is argued in the paper, the new perspectives and prospects on human cognition and knowledge that are far from the classic concepts. (shrink)

The point of departure of this paper is the striking similarities between the dispositions critical media literacy education aims to cultivate and the characteristics conspiracy theorists claim to embody. The golden question of critical literacy, “who benefits?” is in fact the central question of conspiracy theorists: “cui bono?” While critical media literacy educators teach learners to disrupt the common sense, to interrogate multiple viewpoints, to focus on sociopolitical issues, and to take actions and promote social justice, conspiracy theorists claim (...) that they do exactly those things. What I wish to illuminate through this juxtaposition, however, is not a way to clearly demarcate “critical” from “conspiratorial” theorizing, but is a question of educational desirability of skepticism. Skepticism in this paper is not understood as a classical epistemological question of the possibility of knowledge attainment, but as a form of vigilance toward epistemic authorities like the government, media, and academic institutions. Drawing on philosophy of conspiracy theories and political epistemology, I illuminate the problem of radical skepticism that characterizes some conspiracy theories and discuss the pivotal epistemic role of trust. Through this, I claim that critical media literacy education for democratic citizenship must strike a balance between cultivation of skepticism and building of trust toward epistemic authorities. (shrink)

Introduction The article is focused on theoretical and methodological analysis of a number of social dynamics models that appeared on the basis of non-classical science. They are “challenge — response”, self-organization, a cycle of phase transitions “birth — life — death”, and “zone model”. The author reveals heuristic potential of each model, its strengths and weaknesses in the methodological aspect. The aim of the study is to consider the models of social dynamics that appeared on the basis of (...) non-classical science in social cognition, identify their methodological foundations; compare these theoretical constructs with each other, and to improve these structures in theoretical and methodological aspects. Methods The following general scientific methods were used in the study: modeling, structural-functional, systemic and comparative analysis. The scientific novelty of the study. The author traces evolution of how the models under consideration have been forming in the framework of social cognition, and points out the epistemological foundations of their occurrence. In the “challenge-response” model, the author identifies its basic ideas and classifies the sources that generate historical “challenges” and the entities that form “answers” to them. The author specifies that the model of self-organization appeared long before the 20th century, but only thanks to the systematic approach and synergetics it acquires the necessary theoretical level. The author also points out positive aspects and limitations of the self-organization model in relation to social cognition. The author specifies the full structure of the “zone model” in social cognition, which includes the following elements: the center, the middle part, the intermediate space, and the periphery. Modifications of this model are shown in the framework of the world-system approach and other social theories. Results. The study demonstrates that in relation to each model, empirical material was first accumulated, and only then it was theoretically generalized on the basis of non-classical science. It is shown that the main merit of the world-system analysis is creating a “zone” model of social dynamics. The author recognizes that the zone model to the maximum extent includes other theoretical constructions: “challenge - answer”, self-organization, the cycle of phase transitions “birth - life - death”. It is assumed that in the future, theoretical approaches in the humanities are more likely to include new methodological tools. Conclusions. The author reveals continuity of intellectual instruments among various non-classical models of social dynamics, shows separate stages of the models evolution. It is stated that in the framework of the non-classical methodology of social cognition, there is a place for the approaches generated by classical science (for example, the assumption of linearity as a way of developing society). (shrink)

The article presents social simulation from theoretical and philosophical perspectives as a prognostic tool for researching, analysing and anticipating communication and other processes in social environments. The first part discusses the phenomena of ontological and epistemological simulation, treating social simulation processes as epistemological ones. The second part analyses the attitude of the French sociologist and media philosopher Jean Baudrillard towards social simulation, which he himself treats as ontological one. The counterarguments to introduce Baudrillard’s unidentified distinction between (...) ontological and epistemological simulation processes are presented. The third part deals with the principles of the functioning of social simulations as a prognostic tool and provides analytical possibilities for various social environments, communication and other processes. At the end of the article, it is concluded that Baudrillard’s concept of ontological simulation, which annihilates classical Western metaphysics, erroneously reduces the difference between ontos and epistēmē. (shrink)

The epistemological tradition set up by Plato has been permanently reading as a ‘way of doing philosophy’ in which the dualisms: reality versus illusion, on the one hand, and individual versus the social, on the other, would present not only in an explicit and incommensurable opposition to modern co..

This essay provides evidence to support a promising conceptual and potentially practical set of ideas at once both principled and effective found in the work of Max Weber and Alfred Schutz addressed to the issue of ‘adequacy’ as a goal in social research. Efforts to achieve adequacy beyond the epistemological conditions required by Weber’s demand that evidence meet both causal adequacy and adequacy on the level of meaning were significantly refocused by Schutz’s later concern, responding specifically to Weber, that (...) the social sciences also address themselves to his postulate of adequacy. It states that “Each term used in a scientific system referring to human action must be so constructed that a human act performed within the life-world by an individual actor in the way indicated by the typical construction would be reasonable and understandable for the actor himself, as well as for his fellow men”. A serious attempt to implement a more expansive notion of adequacy by practically activating this postulate in the ways suggested can be beneficial not only for the social research situation but in everyday life as well. (shrink)

The paper analyzes current situation in epistemology that is characterized by the appearance of the so called alternative epistemologies opposing the classical epistemology. The ties between alternative epistemologies and Karl Marx’ class consciousness concept and its development in the neo- and postmarxist works (by A.Gramsci, E.Laclau, Ch.Mouffe) is demonstrated. The research is focused on the concept of “false consciousness” that serves as a basis of the concepts of ideology and hegemony. The concept of hegemony in neo- and postmarxism (...) is analyzed, it is shown how its application is reflected in the research of scientific knowledge: some authors claim that science is an agent of hegemony and it helps to maintain the illusion of the objectivity of the existence of certain phenomena. The proponents of this position – social constructionists, feminist philosophers et. al. – suggest to accept the equal value of the positions of different social groups each of which holds its own special discourse that helps to express the “knowledge” specific to this certain group. It is shown that such position sees “knowledge” as no longer universal, the knowledge is equaled to local understanding of the world. The conclusion is drawn that the position of K. Marx that gives basis to many claims of postmarxists and social constructionist is more favorable in comparison to them, because Marx whilst speaking of class consciousness assigns an important role to the individual subject. It allows to combine both universalistic understanding of knowledge and account not only for group differences, but for each individuality. (shrink)

Este ensayo analiza las posturas asociadas con los modelos cuantitativo y cualitativo de investigación en las disciplinas sociales; examina la universalidad e invariancia de las leyes científicas; y presenta las insuficiencias de las concepciones del positivismo lógico y de la epistemología clásica, así como los nuevos conceptos y dos modelos surgidos del mismo. A partir de esto, evalúa el status epistémico de los resultados de investigación bajo ambos modelos, el status de cientificidad de las disciplinas y teorías y la racionalidad (...) de los consensos sobre las conclusiones de investigación: las limitaciones de las leyes científicas muestran como plausible la investigación cuantitativa, que puede asociarse a los valores epistémicos de verdad, intersubjetividad y replicabilidad, y sus conclusiones pueden considerarse como conocimiento genuino, pero no las de la investigación cualitativa. Pero estas propuestas filosóficas no permiten superar la controversia sobre las concepciones y enfoques apropiados para explorar los fenómenos sociales.This essay analyses the positions which are related to the quantitative and qualitative research models in the social disciplines; it examines the universality and invariance of scientific laws; and it presents the inadequacy of the conceptions of logical positivism and of classical epistemology, as well as the new concepts and two of the models which arose there from. Then, based on this it evaluates the epistemic status of research findings from both models, the scientific status of the disciplines and their theories and the rationality of the agreements reached over research conclusions: the limitations of scientific laws show the plausibility of quantitative research, which can be associated with the epistemic values of truth, inter-subjectivity and susceptibility of replication, and its conclusions can be considered as genuine knowledge, though not those of qualitative research. But these philosophical notions leave open the controversy over the appropriate conceptions to explore the social phenomena. (shrink)