Social Philosophy Today 28:67-82 (2012)

Devora Shapiro
Southern Oregon University
In order to arbitrate conflicting propositional knowledge claims—such as when two individuals claim to know the height of a tree in the yard—there is a “fact of the matter” about who is correct. Experiential, non-propositional knowledge, on the other hand, is not so obviously mediated. For one, experiential knowledge is—at least partially—subjective; one of its virtues is that it matters what a person’s background is, socially, etc., when determining the legitimacy of their claims. But this suggests a question: How do we decide whose experience of an event is right, when two individuals differ in their accounts of a single event?In this paper I present the concept of experiential knowledge, asserting that this knowledge is frequently nonpropositional. I argue that accepting experiential knowledge is fundamental to issues of social justice, specifically when it is precisely the claims of those who have the least social or political “authority” who are in danger of having their experiences and the knowledge gained from those experiences, discounted. I address worries over the arbitration of experiential knowledge, and conclude that in cases where necessary, arbitration is both possible and often morally required.
Keywords objectivity  social epistemology  experiential knowledge
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1543-4044
DOI 10.5840/socphiltoday2012285
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,307
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

‘I Know What It's Like’: Epistemic Arrogance, Disability, and Race.Nabina Liebow & Rachel Levit Ades - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association:1-21.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dissenting and Concurring Opinions in International Investment Arbitration: How the Arbitrators Frame Their Need to Differ. [REVIEW]Ruth Breeze - 2012 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 25 (3):393-413.
Balancing Asymmetries in Domain Name Arbitration Practices.Laura Martínez Escudero - 2012 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 25 (3):297-316.


Added to PP index

Total views
134 ( #87,319 of 2,507,717 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #118,992 of 2,507,717 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes