Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A degree of relativization of some epistemic norms — such... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A degree of relativization of some epistemic norms — such as what counts as good evidence or a better style of reasoning — is acceptable without succumbing to irrationalism.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some elements of rationality can vary with historic conditions and traditions of enquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Acknowledging variation in certain epistemic norms does not entail abandoning all rational standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strong rationality relativism is untenable, but this does not require that all epistemic norms be universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic norms derive their normative force precisely from their claim to context-independent validity, as Davidson argues in rejecting conceptual schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relativizing evidential standards to traditions undermines the possibility of cross-traditional criticism, collapsing 'acceptable' relativism into the irrationalism it claims to avoid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'some' and 'all' epistemic norms being relativized cannot be principled without invoking a universal meta-norm, which concedes the anti-relativist point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kuhn's own account of paradigm shifts reveals that inter-paradigm rational adjudication requires shared epistemic standards, suggesting variation in norms marks failure of rationality, not its flexibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If historically variable norms can count as genuinely epistemic, the criteria distinguishing epistemic norms from mere social conventions dissolve, as Siegel argues against naturalized epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Acknowledging variation in certain epistemic norms does not entail abandoning al...Epistemic norms derive their normative force precisely from their claim to conte...If historically variable norms can count as genuinely epistemic, the criteria di...Kuhn's own account of paradigm shifts reveals that inter-paradigm rational adjud...
    +4 moreShow less
    Relativizing evidential standards to traditions undermines the possibility of cr...Some elements of rationality can vary with historic conditions and traditions of...Strong rationality relativism is untenable, but this does not require that all e...The distinction between 'some' and 'all' epistemic norms being relativized canno...

    Similar

    Extremely demanding epistemic norms are sometimes inappropriate even i...84%Strong rationality relativism is untenable, but this does not require ...83%Other norms such as JNA (Justification Norm of Assertion) can predict ...82%Showing that a norm avoids irrational choices establishes pragmatic ra...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: relativism
    View source passageHide passage
    Earlier defenses of epistemic relativism centered on the idea of alternative rationalities and were often developed as a reaction to the charge of irrationality leveled at non-Western tribal people. Rationality traditionally is seen as a cognitive virtue as well as a hallmark of the scientific method. The complex notion of rationality is intimately tied to requirements of consistency, justification, warrant and evidence for beliefs. Relativists about rationality cast doubt on the universal appli
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit