• Abstract

    Over the past five decades, the field of epistemology has undergone a profound transformation that has challenged its traditional underpinnings. Previously, epistemologists ardently pursued the formulation of definitive rules for the attainment of absolute knowledge, basking in the quest for unwavering certainty. However, as time has passed, a collective realization has set in: the pursuit of undoubtable knowledge once the lodestar of epistemology has lost its luster and feasibility. This shifting intellectual landscape has brought the need for a fundamental reexamination of epistemology’s role and purpose to the forefront. The conventional role of epistemology as a proponent of unassailable principles for knowledge acquisition has waned. The once-central premise of epistemology, which claims the attainability of unshakeable certainty, now faces skepticism. Epistemologists grapple with a formidable question: Can we genuinely secure unquestionable knowledge in a world characterized by uncertainty and complexity? The prevailing sentiment among contemporary thinkers leans toward growing skepticism regarding the possibility of achieving undoubtable knowledge, necessitating a thorough reevaluation of the essence of epistemology. This profound reevaluation has given rise to two influential paradigms, the ‘psychologistic’ and ‘naturalistic’ projects, which seek to redefine epistemology’s scope and objectives, departing from traditional precepts. The field is currently undergoing a transformation within the crucible of these new paradigms, as this essay will delve into more deeply.

  • References

    1. Capaldi, E. J., Proctor, R. W. (2000). Laudan’s Normative Naturalism: A Useful Philosophy of Science for Psychology. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(3):430-454. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423367
    2. Davidson, D. (2004). Problems of Rationality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    3. Field, H. (2009). Epistemology without Metaphysics. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 143(2):249-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9338-1
    4. Giere, R.N. (1985). Philosophy of Science Naturalized. Philosophy of Science, 52(3):331-356. https://doi.org/10.1086/289255
    5. Jacquette, D. (2001). Psychologism Revisited in Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology. Metaphilosophy,32(3):261-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00187
    6. Kim, J. (1988). What is “Naturalized Epistemology”? Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2, Epistemology. 1988, Ridgeview Publishing Company, pp. 381-405.
    7. Kitcher, Ph. (1992). Naturalists Return. The Philosophical Review, 101(1):52-114. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185044
    8. Kornblith, H. (1982). The Psychological Turn. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 60(3):238-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048408212340661
    9. Laudan, L. (1976). Two Dogmas of Methodology. Philosophy of Science, 43(4):585-597. https://doi.org/10.1086/288718
    10. Laudan, L. (1978). The Philosophy of Progress... PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2: 530-547.
    11. Laudan, L. (1990). Normative Naturalism. Philosophy of Science,57(1):44-59. https://doi.org/10.1086/289530
    12. Luper, St. (1998). Naturalized Epistemology. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 287-294.
    13. Putnam, H. (1982). Why Reason Can’t Be Naturalized. Synthese 52. Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston. USA, pp. 3-23.
    14. Quine, W.V. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York and London. Columbia University Press, pp. 69-90.
    15. Quine, W.V. (1963). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. From a Logical Point of View. Harper Torchbooks. The Science Library. New York and Evanston, pp. 20-46.
    16. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Malque Publishing

How to cite

Mosinyan, D. (2024). Reimaging epistemology: A historical analysis of shifting paradigms. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 7(5), 2024082. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024082
  • Article viewed - 219
  • PDF downloaded - 100