2

Any time we use a noun — and in particular a proper noun — we ought to recognize that we are using an incomplete reference to a putatively exact object. The incompleteness of that reference is not usually obvious to us, because we naturally fill in the blanks. If I say to you "Give Bob this chart, please", it won't occur to you that there are in ...


2

All these different categories seem to be a crude attempt to reproduce the notion of probability. If we assume that the proposition "god exists" is a well defined boolean, then we must assign some probability to it. This probability should be strictly between 0 and 1. (If you assign probability 0 or 1, by the formal math of baysian updating, you ...


2

Some knowledge is obvious when one does not need to think on it, so, when it raises unconsciously (independently of the underlying mechanism that makes it raise). (see also conifold's link). If I tell you the sun will raise tomorrow, you take the existence of the sun as a true fact, and don't even think of it. The existence of the sun is obvious for you. ...


1

The standard response has it that justified belief falls short of knowledge because you could be wrong anyway, and you cannot be said to know what is in fact false (even if the latter is behind the veil of ignorance) without stretch. (Your self-ascription is predicated upon JTB, by the way, to the extent that "I believe x and I am justified in believing ...


1

Mario Bunge (R.I.P. 2020) proposed strong philosophical assumptions underlying the process of making science. I would recommend La ciencia, su método y su filosofía, 1960, Mario Bunge (don't know of english translations). Probably there's a lot of more from him in english, he was quite prolific, a great philosopher of science and an amazing epistemologist, ...


1

There is no noteworthy connection between the two concepts. Consider the following four judgements involving primitive and non-primitive notions according to Euclidean geometry and using a priori according to Kant. The judgements cover all possible combinations: primitive notion in a-priori judgement non-primitive notion in a-priori judgement primitive ...


1

Others have provided holistic responses, hopefully this serves to more "directly" answer your question. Despite the distinction, the use of "epistemic" and "epistemological" in philosophy is mostly interchangeable and occasionally simply a matter of convention. Grammatically, these look very much like noun adjuncts that often ...


1

Your definitions of “epistemic” and “epistemological” seems to adjust to the standard (AFAIK). Ontological is not precisely related to knowledge. Knowledge is a model that the mind creates in order to interact with the world, kind of a map that allows moving through the terrain. The previous terms are related to the subject of knowledge, the map that each ...


1

I personally think a rational explanation has more to do with objective truth rather than with "reality" itself. And what is objective truth but no more than an agreement between 2 or more people? Look at the COVID pandemic, for instance, back in the day we would've explained this situtation as a punishment from God, but today science tells us that ...


1

I would understand this as a false framing of the nature of explanations. Rational explanation is a tool used to justify preferring one value over another. Rational explanation assumes the existence of value systems and can be thought of in a way similar to water piping. The rationality of an explanation is the degree to which the pipes are water tight (...


1

'Rationality' in its broadest sense is puzzle solving. I mean this in the 'jigsaw puzzle' sense: any rational argument is going to take a number of disconnected ideas and observations and then draw connections between them, putting them in particular relationships to each other until a greater picture emerges. For instance, we see a number of objects fall ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible