Epistemic Standards

Definition

Epistemic standards are the criteria or benchmarks that determine the justification and credibility of knowledge claims. These standards influence how we assess what counts as knowledge, including the strength of evidence required and the context in which knowledge is evaluated. They play a crucial role in understanding responses to skepticism, particularly through approaches like common sense philosophy and contextualism, which argue that our everyday knowledge claims can be justified based on these flexible standards.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Epistemic standards can vary depending on the context, meaning what counts as justified belief can change based on circumstances or conversational settings.
2. In G.E. Moore's common sense approach, he argues for a set of epistemic standards grounded in everyday beliefs, suggesting that we should trust our immediate experiences unless there is strong reason to doubt them.
3. Contextualism asserts that our standards for knowing something can shift depending on the stakes involved in a conversation, impacting how we evaluate knowledge claims.
4. Epistemic standards are key in addressing skepticism since they help establish criteria for what counts as reliable evidence against skeptical challenges.
5. Understanding epistemic standards helps clarify how different philosophical perspectives influence our interpretation of knowledge and certainty.

Review Questions

• How do epistemic standards impact the way we respond to skepticism?
  • Epistemic standards shape our responses to skepticism by providing the criteria through which we evaluate knowledge claims. When confronted with skeptical challenges, having clear epistemic standards allows us to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence or justification for our beliefs. This means that if we adopt higher epistemic standards in a given context, we might find it harder to justify certain beliefs, while lower standards might lead us to accept more everyday claims as justified.
• Compare Moore's common sense approach with contextualism regarding epistemic standards and their implications for knowledge claims.
  • Moore's common sense approach emphasizes a fixed set of epistemic standards based on everyday beliefs, arguing that we should trust our ordinary experiences unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise. In contrast, contextualism argues that epistemic standards can fluctuate depending on the context and stakes of a situation. This means that while Moore asserts that certain beliefs are universally justified, contextualism suggests that what counts as justified can change based on the context in which a discussion takes place.
• Evaluate how different epistemic standards might lead to conflicting conclusions about knowledge in various contexts.
  • Different epistemic standards can result in conflicting conclusions about what constitutes knowledge because they establish varying thresholds for justification and evidence. For instance, in a high-stakes situation where falsehood could have severe consequences, individuals may require more rigorous justification for their beliefs than in a low-stakes setting where informal reasoning is deemed acceptable. This variability shows how the application of epistemic standards shapes our understanding of knowledge, leading to differing opinions about what we can justifiably claim to know depending on the context and implications involved.

Related terms

Skepticism: A philosophical position questioning the possibility of certain or absolute knowledge.

Justification: The process of providing reasons or evidence to support a knowledge claim.

Contextualism: The view that the truth-conditions of knowledge claims depend on the context in which they are expressed, affecting how epistemic standards are applied.