Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T22:53:47.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objectivity and Perspective in Empirical Knowledge1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Rebecca Kukla
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Epistemologists generally think that genuine warrant that is available to anyone must be available to everyone who is exposed to the relevant causal inputs and is able and willing to properly exercise her rationality. The motivating idea behind this requirement is roughly that an objective view is one that is not bound to a particular perspective. In this paper I ask whether the aperspectivality of our warrants is a precondition for securing the objectivity of our claims. I draw upon a Sellarsian account of perception in order to argue that it is not; rather, inquirers can have contingent properties and perspectives that give them access to forms of rational warrant and objective knowledge that others do not have. The universal accessibility of reasons, on my account, is not a precondition for the legitimacy of any actual warrant, but rather a regulative ideal governing inquiry and communication.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , June 2006 , pp. 80 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

REFERENCES

Daston, L. (1992). “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective”. Social Studies of Science 22: 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1973–1974). “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 47, pp. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, H. (1953). “The Scientific Outlook: Naturalism and Humanism”. In Feigl, H. and Broadbeck, M. (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (1996). “Science as Social—Yes and No”. In Nelson, L. Hankinson and Nelson, J. (eds.), Feminism, Science and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Haugeland, J. (1997). “Truth and Rule-Following”. In Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hekman, S. (1997). “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22(2): 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1952). Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kukla, R. and Ruetsche, L. (2002). “Contingent Natures and Virtuous Knowers: Could Epistemology be ‘Gendered’?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32(3): 389–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, R. (2003). “Attention and Blindness: Objectivity and Contingency in Moral Perception.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supp. 28: 319–46.Google Scholar
Little, M. O. (1995). “Seeing and Caring: The Role of Affect in Feminist Moral Epistemology.” Hypatia 10(3): 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. H. (1979). “Virtue and Reason.” The Monist 62(3): 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. H. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. H. (1998). “Having the World In View: Sellars, Kant, and Intentionality.” Journal of Philosophy 95: 431–91.Google Scholar
Murdoch, I. (2001). The Sovereignty of Good. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (1992). Love's Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, L. (2004) “Virtue and Contingent History: Possibilities for Feminist Epistemology”. Hypatia 19(1): 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, N. (1989). The Fabric of Character. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2003). “Why Standpoint Matters”. In Figuera, E and Harding, S. (eds.), Sciences and Other Cultures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar