Virtue epistemology starts with real insights; ruins them by forced mis-application to Gettier-type pseudoproblems. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/ …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Lesson of Gettier is that JTB is wrong & useless epistemology. Should have motivated empirical investigation of how, actually, people know.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
Tradition prevents philosophers actually attempting to find anything out, so just tried to find clever word-game epicyclic patches to JTB.
7 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Meanwhile, anthropologists like Ed Hutchins http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/ have found out a lot about how people know by actually observing them.
5 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness do you have a 140/280-char summary of Hutchins? :) I'm partial to Popper myself, but intrigued by an anthropological approach3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
@KevinSimler Popper had important insights, but disconfirmation is not, empirically, how science actually works.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I take Popper's project as an explanation of how knowledge grows, not how human primates actually do science — FWIW2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
@KevinSimler yes… I don’t think separating those is a good idea, fwiw.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness ô_ô By what yardstick, then, do you measure science (or any other knowledge-generating process)?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
@KevinSimler There’s no meta-method for this, either. Figuring things out is always human-complete. But complete humans can do it!1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.