Péter Hartl & Dr. Tihamér Margitay
Dept. of Philosophy and the History of Science
1111 Budapest, Egry J. st. 1. E 610.
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.filozofia.bme.hu
Social Epistemology
The Cognitive Robinson Crusoe
2017.07.13.
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
The Individualistic Epistemology

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Assumptions and problems of „individualistic” („traditional”) epistemology:

Epistemic agents are individual human beings.

What are the desidered conginitve states (e.g. knowledge) and methods leading to
those states (e.g. justification) ?

The standards of knowledge and rationality are universal and objective.

Knowledge represents the world / aims at truth (correspondence).

What can an isolated subject know – should believe -- entirely on her own when
her resources are her senses and the contents of her mind?

In principle, an individual can know everything that can be known by a
community, practically, of course, she cannot.
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Social Epistemology

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
The social and interpersonal aspects of knowledge
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
From Individualistic to Social Epistemology

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Forms of changes:
2017.07.13.

Adding assumptions (resources) and problems

Replacing assumptions and problems
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Question: Do-It-Yourself Social Epistemology
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék

How to make social from individual epistemology?

What sort of modifications of the individualistic epistemology are necessary?
What kind of phenomena should be taken into consideration? And WHY?
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék

Testimony

Peer agreement and disagreement

Argumentation

Social norms of knowledge and rationality

Etc..
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Example: Testimony, Individualistic Accounts
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék

Under what conditions can a testimony be relied on? Different answers:

A cognitive agent can rely on it if she has further non-testimonial physical
evidence about the reliability of the speaker. (the agent’s evidence, expanded
content -- individualistic epistemology)

Variation: By default, she can accept them unless she has contrary evidence
(defeater). (the agent’s evidence, expanded content -- individualistic
epistemology)
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Example: Testimony, Social Accounts
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék

Under what conditions can a testimony be relied on? Different answers:

The cognitive agent, s can accept what t says if t knows what she says. That is if
s knows by testimony that p, then someone else should know p first.
(transindividual evidence, society of knowers – social epistemology)

The cognitive agent can accept a testimony if she is convinced in a rational
debate that it is acceptable. (transindividual method of justification – social
epistemology) New problems: what sort of soc. methods are admissible?

The cog agent can accept a testimony if she has social evidence (social
indicator-properties) about the speaker’s credibility. E.g. I accept that
helicobacter causes stomach ulcer, because I heard it from distinguished
scientists. (social evidence – social epistemology) New problems: what sort of
indicators are reliable? What social procedures can screen credibility? etc..
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
One More Radical Step: the Collective Agent

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
It is a community that generates and acquires knowledge not individuals.

Members of a community share beliefs, cognitive methods and practices.

They rely on each other's testimony.

Only community can maintain norms.

Two cognitive agents: community (most fundamental), individuals.

What are the epistemic properties, methods and practices of collective epistemic
agents?
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Example

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
A radical example of social epistemology is the sociology of knowledge. („the
strong program” of Bloor 1976)
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Arguments for the Sociological Approach
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Historical evidence:

History of science and ideas shows how sociological and psychological
contingencies actually played a role in what people come to beleive.
Theoretical arguments for the need of social (psychological) factors:

Underdetermination (Duhem, Quine): Logically incompatible theories may fit all
possible evidence. Theories are underdetermiend by evidence: How to bridge
the evidential gap? Why one theory is preferred over another?

Epistmological holism (Duhem, Quine): Whole theories (together with
background assumptions) are the units of test (confirmation or falsification).
What claims to revise/to save?

Semantic holism (Quine): Language as a whole has meaninig, meanings cannot
be attached to words separetelly. Theory-ladenness of observation: How to
choose evidence?
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
The Strong Program
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék

„…knowledge for the sciologist is whatever men take to be knowledge… beliefs
which are taken for granted, institutionlized, or invested with authority…”

Great variety of ideas – „…what are the causes of this variation, how and why
does it change?”

To EXPLAIN the production, transmission, change, structure and organization of
knowledge within a particular group of people E.g.:
2017.07.13.

What is believed?

Who believes it and who does not?

Why do they believe it? What are their sources, what are the sources of the
creditbility?

How are these beliefs defended against doubt?

Etc.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Methodology: Causal Explanation

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Social and psychological causes bringing about beleifs, to be found in:

Process of socialization, transmittion of culture

Goals and interests of the members of the group

Ways of generating consensus

Rethorical and negotiation processes

Conventions

Etc.

Impartial explanation: both truth and falsity require explanation (not merely a
sociology of error)

Symmetrical explanation: the same typ of cause for truth and fasity (not merely a
sociology of error)

Reflexivity: the same exaplains the sociology of knowledge itself.
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Methodology: Practice

Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Sociology, social psychology, social anthropology:
2017.07.13.
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology
Radical Socialitzation of Epistemology
Individualistic Epistemology

Epistemic agents are individual
human beings.

What are the desidered conginitve
states (e.g. knowledge) and
methods leading to those states
(e.g. justification) ?

The standards of knowledge and
rationality are universal and
objective.

Knowledge represents the
world/aims at truth
(correpondence).
2017.07.13.
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
Sociology of Knowledge

Collective epistemic agent

What is taken to be knowledge,
how is it produced and maintained

No universalstandards of rationality

Knowledge „represents” consensus

Naturalized inquire into knowledge,
the science of knowledge
Hartl & Margitay – Epistemology

Social Epistemology