The Case against Epistemic Relativism: Reflections on Chapter 6 of F ear of Knowledge

Episteme 4 (1):10-29 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to one sort of epistemic relativist, normative epistemic claims (e.g., evidence E justifies hypothesis H) are never true or false simpliciter, but only relative to one or another epistemic system. In chapter 6 of Fear of Knowledge, Paul Boghossian objects to this view on the ground that its central notions cannot be explained, and that it cannot account for the normativity of epistemic discourse. This paper explores how the dogged relativist might respond

Author's Profile

Gideon Rosen
Princeton University

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
856 (#13,910)

6 months
90 (#39,364)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?