We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Are truth and other epistemic values such as accuracy, consistency, broad scope, simplicity and fruitfulness the most important values? This is a position that can be defended as long as one focusses on the outcomes of the scientific endeavour – mainly theories and models. If one also takes into account the social process that yields these outcomes, then a series of other values become not only important, but really constitutive of science: if one is not free to engage in scientific activity, for example, then there are no outcomes in the first place to be appraised invoking epistemic values. It seems that non-epistemic values such as freedom, honesty and integrity are also constitutive of the collective scientific endeavour. Do we possess an external criterion guaranteeing the priority of a single value or a set of values vis-à-vis the rest?
In this paper, I defend an epistemic requirement on fitting hopes and worries: it is fitting to hope or to worry that p only if one’s epistemic position makes it rational to suspend judgment as to whether p. This view, unlike prominent alternatives, is ecumenical; it retains its plausibility against a variety of different background views of epistemology. It also has other important theoretical virtues: it is illuminating, elegant, and extensionally adequate. Fallibilists about knowledge have special reason to be friendly to my view; it can help them explain why it can be unfitting to hold on to hope and worry in the face of overwhelming evidence, and it can also help them explain the sense in which knowledge that p and hope that –p are in tension with one another.
This chapter addresses whether Gadamerߣs hermeneutics should be considered a kind of relativism or a sort of realism. In this consideration Gadamerߣs treatment of the concept of truth is also presented. This chapter argues that Gadamerߣs hermeneutics is on one side of the hermeneutical fork–the side of realism, as opposed to relativism. Gadamerߣs hermeneutics is considered in relation to the work of John McDowell. For Gadamer, our freedom and our knowledge are always situated and limited, but that does not undo Gadamerߣs commitment to realism and truth.
During the Danish cartoon controversy, appeals to universal liberal values were often made in ways that marginalized Muslims. An analysis of the controversy reveals that referring to ‘universal values’ can be exclusionary when dominant actors fail to distinguish their own culture’s embodiment of these values from the more abstract ideas. The article suggests that the solution to this problem is not to discard liberal principles but rather to see them in a more deliberative democratic way. This means that we should move from focusing on citizens merely as subjects of law and right holders to seeing them as co-authors of shared legal and moral norms. A main shortcoming of the way in which dominant actors in Denmark responded to the cartoons was exactly that they failed to see the Muslim minority as capable of participating in interpreting and giving shared norms. To avoid self-contradiction, liberal principles and constitutional norms should not be seen as incontestable aspects of democracy but rather as subject to recursive democratic justification and revision by everyone subject to them. Newcomers ought to be able to contribute their specific perspectives in this process of democratically reinterpreting and perfecting the understanding of universalistic norms, and thereby make them fit better to those to whom they apply, as well as rendering them theirs.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.