Tell me more ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

In a recent paper, Steve Fuller lambasts the analytic social epistemologist as having little understanding of how knowledge making actually works in the real world. The criticism is that the analytic approach has not made any significant progress compared to studies of knowledge in the wild.

What counterarguments are there to this position from epistemologists, social or otherwise, of an analytic bent?

share|improve this question
Can we have a social-epistemology tag please? – pablomo Oct 26 '12 at 11:22
1  
are you able to elaborate on what you mean by studies in the wild? what would progress in social epistemology look like? – Dr Sister Oct 26 '12 at 12:12
Well, there's the counterargument that the rest of social epistemology has been equally devoid of progress (i.e. that it is the social not the analytic that is at fault here). But I don't really think that's what Fuller is getting at. – Rex Kerr Oct 26 '12 at 19:52
@seldom 1) I suppose I mean naturalistic approaches in a broad sense, including Fuller’s which is really a sociology of knowledge; 2) Good question and not sure I can answer that very well, other than to say it might provide more (actionable) insight. – pablomo Oct 27 '12 at 9:27
@seldom 1) sorry I meant naturalised – pablomo Oct 27 '12 at 10:25

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.