RE: "Doing" Epistemology?

[Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Greetings,

djf500@york.ac.uk wrote:
"It is not worth noting that epistemology is not the study of knowledge, 
because it is. What you seem to have done is to conflate 'knowledge' as 
something like a mass-term and epistemology as a type-term. The 
difference is like that between referring to a class and referring to 
its members. Epistemologists study knowledge qua knowledge, and may well 
refer to particular bits of putative knowledge as an example of the type."


Well thank you for that argument-free reply.
I'm not saying that what epistemologists study cannot end up being 
token-knowledge: if it were otherwise judgements such as "so and so 
knows his epistemology" would not make sense. Epistemology is the study 
of something and in that study one gains knowledge. But, again, 
possessing the knowledge of the epistemologist would not make one an 
epistemologist since that's to mistake an epistemologist for the 
epistemic equivalent of a lexicographer. The kind of position you are 
talking about entails that "epistemologist" is satisfied by anyone whom 
is familiar with the various epistemological positions. Unfortunately in 
doing that you are conflating the history of philosophy with the 
practice of philosophy. Neither entails the other. Moreover, your kind 
of condition is far too strict as you'd require the epistemologist to 
study knowledge. But the point of epistemology is not to list all the 
knowledge that is and might be possessed but to examine the conditions 
of such knowledge. How is the epistemologist supposed to study 
knowledge? That would presuppose that the epistemologist knows what 
knowledge is in the first place. If that's true then why are they doing 
epistemology in the first place and how can epistemologists disagree 
(after all, they cannot all be right). If you treat epistemologists as 
studying knowledge qua knowledge then you are talking about an entirely 
question-begging endeavour. The point is that epistemologists don't know 
exactly what knowledge is and even if they did possess that knowledge it 
would no more make them an epistemologist than a person whom simply 
reads and memorizes the works of epistemologists.

Regards,

Luis



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml