In Defense of the Epistemic Imperative

Axiomathes 28 (4):435-446 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sample (2015) argues that scientists ought not to believe that their theories are true because they cannot fulfill the epistemic obligation to take the diachronic perspective on their theories. I reply that Sample’s argument imposes an inordinately heavy epistemic obligation on scientists, and that it spells doom not only for scientific theories but also for observational beliefs and philosophical ideas that Samples endorses. I also delineate what I take to be a reasonable epistemic obligation for scientists. In sum, philosophers ought to impose on scientists only an epistemic standard that they are willing to impose on themselves.

Similar books and articles

Epistemic Consequentialism.Jeffrey Dunn - 2015 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Defense of Epistemic Reciprocalism.Seungbae Park - 2017 - Filosofija. Sociologija 28 (1):56-64.
Darwin's Pangenesis and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.P. Kyle Stanford - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):121-144.
Scientific Community: A Moral Dimension.Kristina Rolin - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (5):468-483.
An economic model of scientific rules.José Luis Ferreira & Jesús Zamora-Bonilla - 2006 - Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):191-212.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-03

Downloads
584 (#30,497)

6 months
72 (#66,605)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Seungbae Park
Ulsan National Institute Of Science And Technology

References found in this work

A treatise of human nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 2003 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. Edited by Ernest Campbell Mossner.
Laws and symmetry.Bas C. van Fraassen - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 43 references / Add more references