Skip to main content
Philosophy

Timeline for Intention and Means-End Reasoning in Epistemology

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 1, 2019 at 21:58 answer added E... timeline score: 1
May 1, 2019 at 16:27 vote accept David
May 1, 2019 at 15:23 answer added Philip Klöcking♦ timeline score: 3
May 1, 2019 at 14:41 comment added Dirk Horsten I imediately think of the German word "hineininterpretieren", when I read this, but I don't know if it is a term in epistomology.
May 1, 2019 at 13:56 comment added David You know what, that's exactly it. Thank you! I don't know why it took me so long to connect these dots, but yes, cherry picking fits the bill. Also, for "characterize[ing] arguments by the intent of the agent making the argument (honest or malicious.)" I suppose could just say an argument is honest or disingenuous.
May 1, 2019 at 13:52 history edited David
edited tags
May 1, 2019 at 13:41 comment added Philip Klöcking♦ So, it is specifically about a rhetorical strategy that is disingenuous in the application of the agreed-upon standards because it is selective in order to purposefully mislead and paint an inappropriate overall picture and at the same time completely truthful, sound, and honest in the premises and arguments used? Maybe the term you are looking for is the (fallacious) rhetorical strategy of cherry picking?
May 1, 2019 at 13:37 comment added David I suppose I’ve come to associate the term “rhetoric” with healthy debate, rather than this sort of malicious “debate hacking." But, if that's the only applicable term, then I suppose it's close enough. I guess I was wondering if there was a way to characterize arguments by the intent of the agent making the argument (honest or malicious.) Whether that argument is a scientific one or not wasn't my primary concern.
May 1, 2019 at 13:30 comment added David Yes, it’s exactly this “flair of maliciousness “ that I’m getting at. Like Descartes’ evil genius, but within the context of argument (or scientific inquiry), agents like A are malicious and intend to mislead (or at least achieve ends other than reaching the truth). Although, most problematically, they mislead without ever saying anything explicitly untrue. A’s argument is sound; his application of the agreed upon methods, however, is selective, which allows him to focus only on the points that support his conclusions.
May 1, 2019 at 12:50 comment added Philip Klöcking♦ Maybe, to work out the intention of the question as clarified in your comment more clearly, you could rephrase it in terms of manipulative scientific practices that are used to intentionally produce desired outcomes, which could be a question not of epistemology per se, but rather the ethical part of the philosophy of science. As presented in the comment, convincing B is the (rhetorical) end to which the practice you ask to give a name for is rather a means. Does this resonate with the gist of your question or lead astray?
May 1, 2019 at 12:35 comment added Philip Klöcking♦ I see your point as well, but how is choosing to omit the mentioning of a number of contraindicative studies or purposefully choosing the methods and questions and/or ignoring existing data in one's own study in order to promote the intended outcome - a regular occurrence in research financed by third parties - not a rhetorical means of A independently from B's awareness? It only adds a certain flair of maliciousness and insincerity because of the methodological leading of someone to an error.
May 1, 2019 at 12:26 comment added David The real life example I had in mind was a staff scientist paid by cigarette companies to reach the conclusion that cigarettes are healthy. Said scientist would purposely structure the study to reach his desired conclusion. I see your point, though. The A, B scenario I described looks exactly like using rhetoric for debate. I suppose what I forgot to mention was that, unlike in a debate, there’s a presumption of neutrality here; that both parties ought to follow the truth wherever it leads without an agenda in mind. In the case I outlined, A clearly has an agenda that B is unaware of.
May 1, 2019 at 12:07 comment added Philip Klöcking♦ As a completely naive reaction, I cannot fathom how this is any different from "rhetoric" regardless of the topic at hand. The art of persuasion is all about which arguments to use and how to use them in order to convince someone else that whatever I argue for is correct, isn't it?
May 1, 2019 at 12:01 history asked David CC BY-SA 4.0