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
    Epistemic relativism cannot be coherently formulated. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Epistemic relativism cannot be coherently formulated.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any coherent relativist framework must identify a meta-standard by which competing epistemic systems are recognized as genuinely distinct, yet no such standard can itself be system-relative without vicious regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wittgenstein's notion of 'hinge propositions' in On Certainty reveals that some epistemic commitments must function as absolute anchors, undermining the relativist's claim that all justification is framework-internal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hilary Putnam's self-refutation argument shows that relativism, when asserted as a thesis, implicitly claims trans-framework truth, consuming itself in the act of formulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Donald Davidson's argument against conceptual schemes demonstrates that intelligible disagreement between epistemic systems presupposes enough shared rationality to make radical epistemic divergence incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two epistemic systems are sufficiently incommensurable to support relativism, they cannot be recognized as rival systems at all, collapsing relativism into mere mutual unintelligibility rather than a positive philosophical thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The epistemic relativist holds that any claim of the form 'Evidence E justifies belief B' must be construed as relative to an epistemic system C that the subject S accepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the relativist sets up an opposition between two or more alternative non-convergent epistemic systems, the relativist cannot avoid assuming the universality of at least some epistemic principles, including deduction, induction, and warrant through empirical evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no coherent way for the relativist to account for what it means to accept or adhere to a given epistemic system under the relativist's own framework.
      ?

      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

    Any coherent relativist framework must identify a meta-standard by which competi...Donald Davidson's argument against conceptual schemes demonstrates that intellig...Hilary Putnam's self-refutation argument shows that relativism, when asserted as...If two epistemic systems are sufficiently incommensurable to support relativism,...
    +4 moreShow less
    The epistemic relativist holds that any claim of the form 'Evidence E justifies ...There is no coherent way for the relativist to account for what it means to acce...When the relativist sets up an opposition between two or more alternative non-co...Wittgenstein's notion of 'hinge propositions' in On Certainty reveals that some ...

    Similar

    Alethic relativism undermines the possibility of coherent discourse87%If Protagoras genuinely believes in relativism, arguing for relativism...85%Protagorean relativism, which holds that things are as they appear to ...83%There is no coherent way for the relativist to account for what it mea...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: relativism
    View source passageHide passage
    Boghossian has been criticized however for his characterization of epistemic relativism. One notable such criticism has been advanced by Crispin Wright (2008), who takes issue with Boghossian’s attributing to the epistemic relativist a version of (a) above, what Boghossian calls epistemic relationism, or the thesis that any claim of the form “Evidence E justifies belief B”, if it is to have any prospect of being true, must be construed as expressing the claim According to the epistemic system C,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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