European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

Carnap’s lectures at the 1935 Paris Congress for the Unity of Science marked the beginning of his mature metaphilosophy. This paper considers what role remained for epistemology once it was “purified” of all psychological elements as Carnap there demanded. It is argued that while this did mean the end of traditional epistemology, room was found for nontraditional versions in the course of the further development of Carnap’s logic of science.

This paper considers the charge that—contrary to the current widespread assumption accompanying the near-universal neglect of his work—Wilhelm Jerusalem (1854–1923) cannot count as one of the founders of the sociology of (scientific) knowledge. In order to elucidate the matter, Jerusalem’s “sociology of cognition” is here reconstructed in the context of his own work in psychology and philosophy as well as in the context of the work of some predecessors and contemporaries. It is argued that while it shows clear discontinuities with (...) the present-day understanding of the sociology of (scientific) knowledge, Jerusalem’s sociology of cognition was not only distinctive in its own day but also anticipated in nuce a much-discussed theme in current history of science. (shrink)

Resumen Este trabajo reconstruye la caracterización de “positivismo” en tres obras centrales de Horkheimer. Se afirma que, en el uso del término, Horkheimer incurre en una doble equivocidad, pues lo utiliza indistintamente para referirse al positivismo decimonónico y al del siglo XX; además, no reconoce las diferencias internas entre las posiciones de los positivistas contemporáneos. Asimismo, se muestra que muchos rasgos que se consignan como propios del positivismo del siglo XX no tienen justificación en los textos de esa tradición, de (...) manera que la categoría horkheimeriana de “positivismo” se convierte en una entidad interpretativa respecto de la cual la Escuela de Fráncfort se considera antagónica. A partir de lo anterior se realiza una crítica a las interpretaciones del autor.This paper reconstructs the characterization of “positivism” in Horkheimer’s works. We argue that in the use of this term, Horkheimer makes a misinterpretation, then he uses it in order to refer to both nineteenth century positivism and the positivism of the twentieth century; at the same time, he does not recognize the significant contrasts between the positions of the twentieth century positivists. We also show that many of the features Horkheimer sets out for twentieth century positivists find no correlation in texts belonging to this tradition, which makes Horkheimer’s concept of “positivism” an interpretative entity in opposition to Frankfurt School. From the foregoing, we carry out a critique of the interpretations made by the author. (shrink)

Testimony is an important source of knowledge in many contexts, including that of education, but the notion of the teacher as testifier is not often discussed. Since much that is believed by individuals has come to them not from direct experience but by accepting the accounts of others, the trustworthiness of their interlocutors' testimonies, whether these be spoken, textual or electronic in form, is an important factor in determining whether or not they acquire true, justified beliefs. Testimonial trustworthiness is a (...) combination of competence and sincerity, both of which tend to be high when a teacher testifies in her area of expertise. But in the world beyond the classroom there are situations in which the competence or sincerity of the testifier is low, so it is important that the learner acquires an epistemically-virtuous, well-attuned disposition towards testimony. (shrink)