Helen Longino Epistemological Analysis

Improved Essays
Helen Longino is a feminist epistemologist who argues that in order to reduce the chance of having subjective beliefs and have more objective knowledge, we must expand our epistemic communities. I think that Longino’s solution is more palatable than either foundationalism or coherentism. An epistemic community is the community that we hold our beliefs in. By expanding that community, there are more inputs on certain beliefs. If I have a belief that coincides with my epistemic community, but my community consists of people who have the same biases, our viewpoint is limited and, therefore, may be false. If I have a community that is large and diverse, there is a better chance that my bias will be addressed by others in the community. Longino …show more content…
These basic beliefs act as a foundation for the rest of the beliefs that are considered knowledge to a foundationalist. Some of the problems of foundationalism come from the main claim; Beliefs are justified on the foundations of other beliefs. It is not outlined what the foundational basic beliefs are. This implication leaves an open end for anybody to assert any belief as a basic belief and can build up any set of knowledge from that foundation. It also forces connections be made to other beliefs, making people make connections that may not be relevant to the basic foundational belief. Epistemic communities have the tools to address these issues that are present in foundationalist thinking. Longino’s aspect of epistemic communities would eliminate the uncertainty of the foundational basic beliefs. By having a large group of people commenting on what the basic beliefs are would limit the bias that is possible in a foundationalist theory of justification. If one uses an absurd belief as a basic foundationalist belief, they would be questioned by others in their epistemic community. It would also be easier to point out when a belief has nothing to do with the foundation that it has been built …show more content…
The main idea of coherentism is the idea that all of your beliefs must cohere with one another and you can have no contradictory beliefs. This sounds like a rather palatable option before you look at a few of the criticisms. Some of the criticisms of is the fact that coherentism leads to infinite regress. One’s justification for their belief can be their belief in another belief in their system of coherent belief, which could be justified by another belief in their belief system and this occurs endlessly. With a large epistemic community, this would be prevented due to the idea that people within your epistemic community would notice the infinite regression in your belief system and would find fault with it. Another fault seen in the coherentist theory of justification is the idea that you can have multiple belief systems, which do not necessarily have to cohere with each other. You can have two belief systems that contradict each other on the simplest things. One can have two belief systems regarding where they are located, one being true and the other being false, and the coherentist would claim that they are justified in their beliefs. Having a large epistemic community would be able to point out the flaw in your contradictory beliefs and lead to one having more objective

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    If James’s theory was accepted, this would lead to ignorance and will hinder the maximization of true beliefs. Preconceptions heavily influence what one wills to believe. If these preconceptions are tainted by false knowledge, formation of new beliefs becomes difficult and can result in more truths being ignored. Without criticizing and discussing beliefs James’s idea of maximizing true beliefs is not…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Coherentism In Philosophy

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages

    They believe the problem rest on the misunderstanding about coherentism. Often coherentists will point out that their purpose is to build systems of justified beliefs and the idea of justification should not be linear, or circular, it should be holistic in character (BonJour, 2003). A belief will not be justified as true or be rejected as false just because of its relation to its surrounding beliefs. Rather, the belief will be justified if it is in relations with the relevant justified system of beliefs. Some have argued that changing the justification to holistic fails to truly answer the circular problem.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    (Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, I think that Munson wants to totally discount individual’s ability to think critically about an issue and then create a position or belief on the issue without outside influences. It seems that Munson is underestimating a human’s ability to create a belief on their own, which is not only unfair, I think that it is partially wrong. I think it is a combination of what Munson has stated, along with the idea that people create some type of idea about a belief, because a person would not be motivated to continue with the stages of mobilization that Munson highlights. In answer number two, I tried to put Munson’s idea into practice in a real life situation. However it was hard.…

    • 1494 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Perfect Map Of A City

    • 1469 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This can be useful in thinking outside the box and putting our existence as human being into a murch large perspective. While, Relativism is the belief that what is true for one individual may not be true for another. This helps address the issues surrounding Certainty. The main difference between the two is one argues that nothing we beleive in may be objectively true and the other that everything that we believe in personal and subjective. One disadvantage of Relativism is that it is self contradictory, if all beliefs are relative, that isn't that statement in relative as well.…

    • 1469 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Humans are hardwired to form opinions and defend beliefs even if they might not be true. The article, Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds by Elizabeth Kolbert argues that humans are miss-led by false information. The rush humans feel when they win an argument supporting their beliefs is a feeling unreplicated by anything else, even if they argue with incorrect information. The article also states that humans tend to make quick judgements without fully understanding a situation. Wide media usage, when information is often incorrect, could put society into a dangerous position.…

    • 834 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So I suppose between those two I believe that empiricism would have to be more plausible. The reasoning behind my decision goes as follows. With skepticism there is too much questioning and not enough believing, if you question everything around you I feel as though there is no chance to be able to enjoy a life fully. With empiricism you are able to question ideas although there are still certain facts that you are able to accept because of the hard evidence behind them, that to me makes for good ideas. In order to feel comfortable no matter where a person is, there should be a certain barrier between the facts that should be questioned among the facts that should be accepted.…

    • 1629 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But, we can look at the other options,other beliefs and opinions. We need to look at evidence that goes against what we believe. Question your evidence, dont ask why you are right, ask am I wrong because of blank? We cannot go against our human instinct on collecting evidence that facilitates the option of feeling right, but we can question the evidence that we collect by instinct. We can challenge ourselves to prove us wrong instead of someone else doing…

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Firth implies that we are sometimes blinded by our feelings and this can affect the judgement of an Ideal Observer, being dispassionate prevents that. An Ideal Observer must also be consistent with their reactions which I disagree with as this is trying to prove Firth’s idea of an Ideal Observer being an absolutist. An Ideal Observer as I mentioned must be subjectivist depending on different situations, moral judgements will not be consistent. For example, everyone will agree that stealing is bad however an absolutist…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    People who associate themselves with groups that are criticized and denounced tend to feel threatened. They tend to stand up for what they believe in so others will not believe the criticism surrounding their group (DiFonzo 245). A “wish rumor” also ties in with cognitive dissonance. If cognitive dissonance is when you have conflicting ideas or beliefs, a wish rumor could possibly sway you to believe one way or the other. As Rodriguez mentions, the human brain tries to eliminate all cognitive dissonance, so when a person is met with two or more contradicting ideas, they tend to reject theories, rumors, facts, and truths that contradict their ideology or worldview (220).…

    • 1292 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays

Related Topics