Abstract

Naturalism is often defined by reference to what it is not. The non-naturalisms to which naturalism is contrasted are a heterogeneous bunch. And what it is important not to be is a function of the particular concerns of a philosophical culture at a particular time. Most recently naturalism was taken to be science-based analysis. A survey of the sciences relevant to epistemology supports the pessimistic conclusion that none of them is ready to replace or even play a major role in informing philosophical epistemology. The lecture proposes that naturalism in epistemology takes empirical subjects as model cognitive agents, and that epistemic norms are best thought of as sedimented conventions rather than as transcendent rules.