Knowledge as a collective status

<p dir="ltr">While social epistemology is a diverse field, much of it still understands knowledge as an <i>individual status</i>—albeit an individual status that crucially depends on various social factors (such as testimony). Further, the literature on group knowledge un...

وصف كامل

محفوظ في:
التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
المؤلف الرئيسي: Jeremy Randel Koons (14779606) (author)
منشور في: 2021
الموضوعات:
الوسوم: إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
_version_ 1864513566219960320
author Jeremy Randel Koons (14779606)
author_facet Jeremy Randel Koons (14779606)
author_role author
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Jeremy Randel Koons (14779606)
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-05-05T03:00:00Z
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv 10.1111/phib.12224
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Knowledge_as_a_collective_status/22258615
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv CC BY 4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Philosophy and religious studies
Philosophy
Social epistemology
Collective status
Social function
Truth-producing methodologies
Traditional theories of knowledge
Foundationalism
Coherentism
Pragmatist commitments
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Knowledge as a collective status
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Text
Journal contribution
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
text
contribution to journal
description <p dir="ltr">While social epistemology is a diverse field, much of it still understands knowledge as an <i>individual status</i>—albeit an individual status that crucially depends on various social factors (such as testimony). Further, the literature on group knowledge until now has primarily focused on limited, specialized groups that may be said to know this or that as a group. I wish to argue, to the contrary, that <i>all</i> knowledge attributions ascribe a <i>collective status</i>; and that this follows more or less directly from an essential function of entitlement-ascriptions: Ascriptions of knowledge and entitlement serve a primarily social function in that they facilitate coordination by <i>maintaining consensus around true beliefs, true theories, and truth-producing methodologies</i>. This conclusion will shed light on ways in which traditional theories of knowledge (such as foundationalism and coherentism) fail to capture a central function of our epistemic practice.</p><h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Analytic Philosophy<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224</a></p>
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
id Manara2_4892e0039f5ffffcdfd8e3e87ad2f79e
identifier_str_mv 10.1111/phib.12224
network_acronym_str Manara2
network_name_str Manara2
oai_identifier_str oai:figshare.com:article/22258615
publishDate 2021
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository_id_str
rights_invalid_str_mv CC BY 4.0
spelling Knowledge as a collective statusJeremy Randel Koons (14779606)Philosophy and religious studiesPhilosophySocial epistemologyCollective statusSocial functionTruth-producing methodologiesTraditional theories of knowledgeFoundationalismCoherentismPragmatist commitments<p dir="ltr">While social epistemology is a diverse field, much of it still understands knowledge as an <i>individual status</i>—albeit an individual status that crucially depends on various social factors (such as testimony). Further, the literature on group knowledge until now has primarily focused on limited, specialized groups that may be said to know this or that as a group. I wish to argue, to the contrary, that <i>all</i> knowledge attributions ascribe a <i>collective status</i>; and that this follows more or less directly from an essential function of entitlement-ascriptions: Ascriptions of knowledge and entitlement serve a primarily social function in that they facilitate coordination by <i>maintaining consensus around true beliefs, true theories, and truth-producing methodologies</i>. This conclusion will shed light on ways in which traditional theories of knowledge (such as foundationalism and coherentism) fail to capture a central function of our epistemic practice.</p><h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Analytic Philosophy<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224</a></p>2021-05-05T03:00:00ZTextJournal contributioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontextcontribution to journal10.1111/phib.12224https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Knowledge_as_a_collective_status/22258615CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/222586152021-05-05T03:00:00Z
spellingShingle Knowledge as a collective status
Jeremy Randel Koons (14779606)
Philosophy and religious studies
Philosophy
Social epistemology
Collective status
Social function
Truth-producing methodologies
Traditional theories of knowledge
Foundationalism
Coherentism
Pragmatist commitments
status_str publishedVersion
title Knowledge as a collective status
title_full Knowledge as a collective status
title_fullStr Knowledge as a collective status
title_full_unstemmed Knowledge as a collective status
title_short Knowledge as a collective status
title_sort Knowledge as a collective status
topic Philosophy and religious studies
Philosophy
Social epistemology
Collective status
Social function
Truth-producing methodologies
Traditional theories of knowledge
Foundationalism
Coherentism
Pragmatist commitments