epistemology

[billcu1]

In epistemic arguments are irrational things such as emotional responses without thought taken into consideration in accordance to the theory of justification (of knowledge)? How would a typical epistemological argument be argued, can someone give me an example?

 

[ClearWater]

In epistemic arguments are irrational things such as emotional responses without thought taken into consideration in accordance to the theory of justification (of knowledge)? How would a typical epistemological argument be argued, can someone give me an example?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’d say from the general perspective of most epistemologists, for your belief X to have warrant, it needs to be both justified and true. Emotional responses are not beliefs in themselves, so cannot be really justified as knowledge.

 

[hicetnunc]

In epistemic arguments are irrational things such as emotional responses without thought taken into consideration in accordance to the theory of justification (of knowledge)? How would a typical epistemological argument be argued, can someone give me an example?

Epistemological arguments are those whose premises are based on to what extent the terms of the argument can be known with certainty. In other words, these arguments deal with degrees of certainty and probability. For example, “Drake’s equation” for life on other planets is a (failed) attempt at an epistemological or probabilistic argument. Some people use epistemic arguments to argue against abortion too. For example, how sure can a proponent of abortion be that the fetus is not a human being? If the proponent is not certain that the fetus is not human, they should not advocate the killing of it, since the killing of innocent life is wrong. If they are sure that the fetus is not a person with a right to life, then they must provide evidence and clear justification for this fact, and not simply emotive arguments based on other, non-equivalent, considerations. So in an epistemic argument of this kind, the justification of the conclusion is based on separating non-certain elements, like emotion, in order to arrive at a degree of certainty about the key terms.

 

[billcu1]

Epistemological arguments are those whose premises are based on to what extent the terms of the argument can be known with certainty. In other words, these arguments deal with degrees of certainty and probability. For example, “Drake’s equation” for life on other planets is a (failed) attempt at an epistemological or probabilistic argument. Some people use epistemic arguments to argue against abortion too. For example, how sure can a proponent of abortion be that the fetus is not a human being? If the proponent is not certain that the fetus is not human, they should not advocate the killing of it, since the killing of innocent life is wrong. If they are sure that the fetus is not a person with a right to life, then they must provide evidence and clear justification for this fact, and not simply emotive arguments based on other, non-equivalent, considerations. So in an epistemic argument of this kind, the justification of the conclusion is based on separating non-certain elements, like emotion, in order to arrive at a degree of certainty about the key terms.

This makes me think some times of various “phases” the masses have went through. For example the “sex offender craze”. Statistics show correlation not causes. Statistics concerning some of these times of “studies” are at best inconclusive. And show pretty consistently that sex offenses are the 2nd lowest reoffense rate other than murder. Yet people of paralyzed. Larceny is a common reoffense.

Another thing is the growing “germaphobe” craze. Someone touched something so there might be germs so grab the sanitizer. I have seen no epistemology for this.