kim1988_epistemologynaturalized

8/2/2019 Kim1988_EpistemologyNaturalized

1/26


2/26

Philosophicalerspectives,, Epistemology,988

WHAT S "NATURAUZEDPISTEMOLOGY?"Jaegwon imBrownUniversity

1. Epistemology s a NormativenquiryDescartes'pistemologicalnquiryntheMeditationseginswiththis uestion:What ropositionsreworthyfbelief?n theFirstMeditation escartes anvassesbeliefs fvariouskindshe hadformerlyeld s true nd finds imselforcedoconcludehatheought o reject hem,hat eought ot oaccept hem s true.WecanviewCartesianpistemologys consistingf hefollowingwoprojects:o dentifyhe riteriaywhichweought o regulatec-ceptance ndrejectionfbeliefs,nd to determine hatwemay

besaid oknow ccordingo hose riteria.escartes'pistemologicalagendahasbeen the genda fWesternpistemologyothis ay.Thetwin roblemsf dentifyingriteriafustifiedelief ndcom-ing to termswiththeskeptical hallenge o thepossibilityfknowledgeave defined he entral asks ftheoryfknowledgesinceDescartes. hiswas as true ftheempiricists,fLocke ndHume ndMill, s of hosewhomore losely ollowedescartesntherationalistath.'It s nowonderhen hatmodernpistemologyasbeendominatedby single oncept,hat fustification,ndtwo undamentalues-tions nvolvingt:What onditions ust beliefmeet fwe arejustifiedn cceptingt s true?ndWhat eliefsrewe nfactustifiedin ccepting?ote hat he irstuestionoesnot skfor n"analysis"or"meaning"f he ermjustifiedelief". nd t sgenerallyssum-ed,even fnot lways xplicitlytated,hat otust ny tatement


3/26

382 /Jaegwon imof necessarynd ufficientonditionor belief obe ustifiedilldo.The mplicitequirementasbeen hat he tated onditionsustconstitutecriteria"fustifiedelief,ndforhist snecessaryhatthe onditionse statedwithoutheuseofepistemicerms. hus,formulatingonditionsf ustifiedeliefnsuch ermss "adequateevidence",sufficientround",good eason",beyond reasonabledoubt",ndso on,wouldbe merely o issue a promissoryoteredeemablenlywhen hese pistemicermsrethemselvesxplain-ed ina waythat ccordswith herequirement.2Thisrequirement,hile tpointsn theright irection,oesnotgofar nough.What s crucial s this: he riteriafustifiedeliefmust e formulatedn thebasis fdescriptivernaturalisticermsalone,withoutheuseof ny valuativernormativenes,whetherepistemicr ofanother ind.3 hus, n analysisf ustifiedeliefthatmakesuse ofsuchterms s "intellectualequirement"4nd"having rightobe sure"5wouldnot atisfyhis eneralizedon-dition;lthoughuch nanalysisan be informativendenlighten-ing bout he nter-relationshipsf hese ormativeoncepts,twillnot, nthepresent onception,ount s a statementf riteriafjustifiedelief,nless f ourse hese erms re themselvesrovid-ed with onnormativeriteria. hatsproblematic,herefore,bouttheuse of pistemicermsnstatingriteriaf ustifiedeliefs notits ossibleircularitynthe sual ense; athert sthe acthat heseepistemicermsrethemselvesssentiallyormative. eshallaterdiscussherationale f this trengthenedequirement.As many hilosophersaveobserved,6he wo uestions e havesetforth,neabout he riteriafustifiedeliefndthe ther boutwhatwe can be saidtoknow ccordingothose riteria,onstraineach ther. lthoughome hilosophersavebeenwillingo wallowskepticismust ecausewhatweregards correctriteriafustifiedbelief re seen to leadinexorablyo theconclusionhatnone, rvery ew, fourbeliefs re ustified,heusualpresumptions thatour nswer othefirstuestionhouldeaveour pistemicituationlargely nchanged.hat s tosay, t sexpectedoturnut hat c-cordingothe riteriafustifiedelief e come o ccept, eknow,orare ustifiednbelieving,retty uchwhatwereflectivelyhinkwe know rareentitledobelieve.Whateverhe xacthistory,t sevidenthat he onceptfustifica-tionhascome o take entertage nourreflectionsn thenatureofknowledge.nd part rom istory,here s a simple eason or


4/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?383our preoccupation ith ustification:t is the only specificallyepistemic omponentn the classic tripartiteonception fknowledge.eitherelief or ruths a specificallypistemicotion:beliefsa psychologicalonceptnd ruth semantical-metaphysicalone.These onceptsmayhave an implicitpistemologicalimen-sion, ut f hey o, t s ikelyobethroughheirnvolvementithessentiallyormativepistemic otionsikeustification,vidence,andrationality.oreover,ustificationswhatmakes nowledgetselfa normativeoncept. nsurfacet east, eitherruth orbeliefsnormativerevaluativeI shall rgue elow, hough,hat elief oeshave n essential ormativeimension).utustificationanifestlyis normative.f beliefs ustifiedor s,then t spermissiblendreasonable, rom he pistemicoint fview, or s tohold t, nditwould eepistemicallyrresponsibleo hold eliefshat ontradictit. fweconsider elievingraccepting propositiono be an"ac-tion" n an appropriateense,beliefustificationould hen e aspecial ase of ustificationf ction, hichn tsbroadest ermssthe entral oncern fnormativethics. ust s it s thebusinessfnormativethics o delineate he onditionsnderwhichcts nddecisionsre justifiedromhe moralpoint fview, o it is thebusinessf pistemologyo dentifynd nalyzehe onditionsnderwhich eliefs,ndperhapstherropositionalttitudes,re ustifiedfrom heepistemologicaloint fview.It probablys onlyanhistoricalccidenthatwestandardlypeakof normativethics"butnotof normativepistemology".pistemologys a normativedisciplines much s,and n the ame ense s,normativethics.We can summarizeurdiscussionhus arnthe ollowingoints:thatustificationsa centralonceptf ur pistemologicalradition,thatustification,s it sunderstoodn this radition,sa normativeconcept,nd nconsequencehatpistemologytselfs a normativeinquiry hoseprincipalim s a systematictudyfthe onditionsof ustifiedelief. take tthat hesepointsre uncontroversial,althoughf ourse hereouldbedisagreementbout hedetails-forxample,boutwhat tmeans o ay conceptrtheorys "nor-mative" r"evaluative".2. The FoundationalisttrategyInorder o dentifyhe argetfthenaturalisticritique-in ar-


5/26

384 /Jaegwon imticular, uine's-itwillbe usefulo take briefookat the lassicresponse o theepistemologicalrogramet forthyDescartes.Descartes'pproachothe roblemfustificationsa familiartory,at east s the extbookellst: t akes he ormfwhat s now om-monlyalled foundationalism".hefoundationalisttrategystodivide he ask f xplainingustificationnto wo tages: irst,o den-tify set fbeliefshat re"directly"ustifiedn hatheyre ustifiedwithouterivingheirustifiedtatus romhat f nyother elief,and then oexplainhowother eliefsmaybe "indirectly"r "in-ferentially"ustifiedy tandingnanappropriateelationo thosealreadyustified.irectlyustifiedeliefs,r"basicbeliefs",re toconstitutehe oundationponwhichhe uperstructuref nonbasic"or"derived"eliefss torest.What eliefshen redirectlyustified,accordingoDescartes?ubtletiesside, eclaimedhat eliefsboutour wnpresentonscioustates re monghem.nwhat oes heirjustificationonsist?What sitabout hese eliefshatmake hemdirectlyustified?omewhatimplisticallygain, escartes' nsweris that hey re ustifiedecause heyre ndubitable,hat he tten-tive ndreflective ind annot ut ssent o them.How are non-basicbeliefsustified?y deduction"-thats,by series f nferen-tial teps, r"intuitions",ach ofwhichs ndubitable.f, herefore,wetakeCartesianndubitabilitysa psychologicalotion, escartes'epistemologicalheoryan besaidto meet hedesideratumfpro-viding onepistemic,aturalisticriteriaf ustifiedelief.Descartes' oundationalistrogram as nherited,n ts ssentialoutlines,y he mpiricists.nparticular,is mentalism",hat eliefsabout ne's owncurrent ental tate reepistemologicallyasic,went ssentially nchallengedytheempiricistsndpositivists,until his entury.pistemologistsavedifferedrom ne anotherchieflynregardotwoquestions:irst,hat lsebelongednourcorpus fbasicbeliefs,ndsecond, ow hederivationfthenon-basicpartof ourknowledge as to proceed.Even theLogicalPositivists ere,by and large, oundationalists,lthoughome ofthemcame to renounceCartesianmentalismn favor of a"physicalisticasis".7nfact, hePositivists erefoundationaliststwice ver:for hem observation",hetherhenomenologicalrphysical,erved ot nly s thefoundationfknowledgeut s thefoundation f all "cognitivemeaning"-that s, as both anepistemologicalnd a semanticoundation.


6/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?3853. Quine's ArgumentsIthasbecome ustomaryorpistemologistshoprofessllegianceto "naturalistic"onceptionfknowledgeopayhomage oQuineasthe hiefontemporaryrovenancef heirnspiration-especiallyto his nfluentialaper Epistemologyaturalized".8uine's rin-cipal rgumentnthis aper gainstraditionalpistemologys bas-ed on the claimthat heCartesianoundationalistrogram as

failed-thatheCartesianquest orertainty"s "alost ause".Whilethis laim bout hehopelessnessf heCartesianquest or ertain-ty" snothing ew, singtto discredithevery onceptionfnor-mative pistemologys new, omethinghat ny erious tudentfepistemologyust ontend ith.Quinedivides he lassic pistemologicalrogramnto woparts:conceptualeduction hereby hysicalerms,ncludinghoseoftheoreticalcience, rereduced, ia definition,o terms eferringtophenomenaleaturesf ensoryxperience,nddoctrinaleduc-tionwherebyruthsbout hephysical orld reappropriatelyb-tained romruthsbout ensoryxperience.he"appropriateness"just lluded oreferso therequirementhat hefavoredpistemicstatus"certainty"or lassic pistemologists,ccordingoQuine) fourbasicbeliefs e transferred,ssentiallyndiminished,oderiv-edbeliefs,necessary equirementf hederivationalrocesss toyield nowledgeromnowledge. hat erivational ethods avethis ropertyfpreservingpistemictatus?erhapshererenone,given urpronenessoerr nframingerivationss in nythinglse,not omentionhepossibilityf apses f ttentionnd memorynfollowingengthyroofs.ut ogical eductionomes s close obe-ingoneas any; tcanatleastbe relied nto transmitruth,fnotepistemictatus.tcouldperhaps e argued hatnomethod anpreserveertaintynlesstpreservesor sknown opreserve)ruth;and f his sso, ogical eductionsthe nlymethod orthonsider-ing. do notknowwhetherhiswas the attitudef most lassicepistemologists;utQuine ssumeshatf eductionoesn't illheirbill,nothing ill.Quine eestheprojectfconceptualeductions culminatingnCarnap's erLogische ufbau er Welt.AsQuine ees t,Carnap"camenearest o executing"heconceptual alfofthe classicepistemologicalroject.Butcoming lose is notgood enough.Becauseof the holisticmanner n which mpiricalmeanings


7/26

386 /Jaegwon imgeneratedy xperience,oreductionf he ort arnapndothersso eagerly oughtould nprinciplee completed.ordefinitionalreduction equirespoint-to-pointeaningrelations9 etweenphysicalermsndphenomenalerms,omethinghat uine's olismtells s cannot e had.The secondhalf ftheprogram,octrinalreduction,s inno better hape; n fact,t was theone tostumblefirst, or, ccording o Quine, ts impossibilityas decisivelydemonstratedongbefore heAufbau, yHume n hiscelebrateddiscussionf induction. he "Humean redicament"howsthattheoryannot e logically educed rom bservation;hereimplyis no wayofderivingheory rom bservationhatwill ransmithelatter'spistemictatus ntacto theformer.I don't hinknyonewants odisagree ith uinenthese laims.It s notpossible o "validate" cience n thebasisof ensoryx-perience,f validation" eans ustificationhroughogical educ-tion.Quineof coursedoesnotdeny hat ur theoriesepend nobservationor videntialupport;e has aid hatensoryvidenceis the nly vidence heres. To be sure,Quine's rgumentgainstthepossibilityf onceptualeductionas a new wist:he pplica-tion fhis holism". uthis onclusions nosurprise;translationalphenomenalism"as beenmoribund ormanyyears.10 nd, sQuinehimselfotes, is rgumentgainst hedoctrinaleduction,the quest or ertainty",sonly restatementfHume'sskeptical"conclusionsoncerningnduction:nductionfter ll is notdeduc-tion.Most f us are inclined,think,o viewthe ituationuinedescribes ith ogreat larm,nd rather oubt hat hese onclu-sions of Quine'scame as newsto most epistemologistshen"Epistemologyaturalized" as firstublished. e aretemptedorespond:f oursewe can't efine hysicalonceptsn ermsf ense-data;of ourse bservationunderdetermines"heory.hat s whyobservations observationnd nottheory.So it sagreed n all hands hat he lassicalpistemologicalro-ject, onceivedsoneofdeductivelyalidatinghysicalnowledgefromndubitableensoryata, annotucceed. utwhatsthemoralof his ailure? hat hould e its hilosophicalesson ous?Havingnoted hefailuref theCartesianrogram, uinegoeson:11

Thestimulationf his ensoryeceptorss all theevidenceanybody as had togo on,ultimately,narrivingt hispicturef theworld.Whynot ust ee howthis onstruction


8/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?387really roceeds?Whynot ettle or sychology?uchsurrenderftheepistemologicalurden opsychologys amovethatwas disallowednearlier imes s circularreasoning.f heepistemologist'soal s validationf thegrounds f empiricalcience, e defeats ispurpose yusing sychologyrother mpiricalcience n thevalidation. owever, uch cruples gainst ircularityavelittle oint nce we havestopped reamingfdeducingscience rom bservation.fwe are outsimplyo understandthe inkbetween bservationnd science,we are welladvised o useanyavailablenformation,ncludinghatprovided y thevery ciencewhose inkwith bservationwe are seeking o understand.

AndQuinehas thefollowingo say about hefailurefCarnap'sreductive rogramn theAufbau:12To relaxthedemand or efinition,ndsettle or kind freductionhat oesnot liminate,s to renounce he astremainingdvantagehatwe supposed ational econ-structiono have over traightsychology;amely,headvantage ftranslationaleduction.f ll we hopefors areconstructionhat inks cience oexperiencenexplicitways hort ftranslation,hen twould eem more ensibleto settle or sychology.etter o discover ow cience s infact eveloped nd learned han o fabricate fictitiousstructureo a similar ffect.If task s entirely opeless,fwe know tcannot e executed, odoubt tis rational o abandon t;we wouldbe better ff oingsomethinglse thathas somehopeof uccess.We canagreewithQuine hathe validation"-thats, ogical eduction-ofcience nthebasisofobservationannot e had; o it srationalo abandonthis articularpistemologicalrogram,f ndeedteverwas a pro-

gram hat nyone eriouslyndertook.utQuine's ecommenda-tions ofurther.nparticular,here retwo spects fQuine's ro-posals hat re of pecialnteresto us:first,e snot nly dvisingustoquit heprogramf validatingcience", ut rgings to takeupanotherpecific roject,nempiricalsychologicaltudyfourcognitive rocesses; econd, eis alsoclaimihghat hisnewpro-gram eplaces he ld, hat oth rogramsrepart f omethingp-


9/26

388 / Jaegwon impropriatelyalled epistemology".aturalizedpistemologys tobea kind f pistemologyfterll, "successorubject"'13o classicalepistemology.How shouldwe react o Quine'surgings? hat hould e ourresponse? he Cartesianrojectfvalidatingcience tartingromthe indubitableoundationf first-personsychologicaleports(perhaps ith hehelp fcertainndubitableirst rinciples)snotthewhole f lassicalpistemology-oro twould eem tfirstlush.Inour haracterizationf lassical pistemology,heCartesianro-gramwas een s onepossible esponseothe roblemf pistemicjustification,he two-part roject f identifyinghe criteria fepistemicustificationnddetermininghat eliefsre nfactustifiedaccordingothose riteria.nurgingnaturalizedpistemology"nus, Quine snot uggestinghatwe giveuptheCartesianounda-tionalist solution and explore others within the sameframework14-perhaps,oadopt ome ort f coherentist"trategy,ortorequiref urbasicbeliefsnlyomedegree f initialredibil-ity"rather han Cartesianertainty,r to permitome sortofprobabilisticerivationnadditiono deductive erivationfnon-basicknowledge,rtoconsiderheuseof pecial ules f vidence,likeChisholm'sprinciplesf vidence",15r togiveupthe earchfor derivationalrocess hat ransmitsndiminishedertaintynfavorfone that antransmitiminishedut till seful egrees fjustification.uine's roposalsmore adical han hat. e isaskingus to set aside the entireframeworkf justification-centeredepistemology.hat s what s new nQuine's roposals. uine s ask-ingus toput nitsplace a purely escriptive,ausal-nomologicalscience f human ognition.16How shouldwe characterizengeneral erms hedifferencee-tweenraditionalpistemologicalrograms,uch s foundationalismand coherenceheory, n the one hand ndQuine'sprogramfnaturalizedpistemologyn the ther? uine's tressson the ac-tual nddescriptiveharacterfhisprogram;e ays, Why ot eehow theonstructionf heoryrombservation]ctuallyroceeds?Whynot ettle or sychology?";17gain, Better o discover owscience s n fact evelopednd earned han.."18 We aregiven ounderstandhat ncontrastraditionalpistemologys not descrip-tive, actualnquiry.ather,t s an attemptt a "validation"r"ra-tionaleconstruction"f cience. alidation,ccordingoQuine, ro-ceeds via deduction,nd rational econstructionia definition.


10/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?389However,heir oint s ustificatory-thats, o rationalizeur un-dry nowledgelaims. oQuinesasking s to et sidewhat s"ra-tional"nrational econstruction.Thus,t snormativityhat uines skingstorepudiate.lthoughQuinedoesnotexplicitlyharacterizeraditionalpistemologys"normative" r "prescriptive",is meaning s ,unmistakable.Epistemologys to be "a chapter f psychology", law-basedpredictive-explanatoryheory,ike ny therheory ithinmpiricalscience; tsprincipalob is tosee howhuman ognizers eveloptheoriestheirpicturef heworld") rombservation"the timula-tion ftheir ensory eceptors").pistemologys to go out of thebusinessof justification. e earliercharacterized raditionalepistemologys essentiallyormative; e see whyQuinewants storejectt.Quine s urgingstoreplace normativeheoryf ogni-tionwith descriptivecience.4. Losing Knowledge rom pistemology

If ustificationrops utofepistemology,nowledgetselfropsoutofepistemology.orourconcept fknowledgesinseparablytied othat fustification.s earlier oted, nowledgetselfsa nor-mative otion. uine's onnormative,aturalizedpistemologyasno room or urconcept fknowledge.t s not urprisinghat,ndescribingaturalizedpistemology,uineseldomtalksaboutknowledge;nstead, e talks bout science" nd "theories"nd"representations".uinewouldhaveus investigateowsensorystimulationleads" o "theories"nd"representation"f heworld.I take tthatwithin he traditionalcheme hese theories"nd"representations"orrespondo beliefs,r systemsfbeliefs;hus,whatQuinewouldhaveus do s to nvestigateow ensorytimula-tion eads to theformationf beliefs bout heworld.But nwhat ense f lead"? taket hat uine as nmind causalornomologicalense.He isurgings todevelop theory,n em-pirical heory,hat ncoversawful egularitiesoverninghepro-cesses hrough hich rganismsome odevelop eliefsbout heirenvironments a causal result fhaving heirensory eceptorsstimulatedncertainways.Quine ays:19

[Naturalizedpistemology]tudies natural henomenon,viz., physical uman ubject. hishuman ubjects


11/26

390 / Jaegwon imaccorded xperimentallyontrollednput-certainatternsfirradiationnassorted requencies,ornstance-andnthefullnessftime he ubject eliverss output descriptionof thethree-dimensionalxternal orld nd itshistory.herelation etween hemeagernput nd torrentialutputs arelation hatwe are promptedo study or omewhathesamereasons hat lways romptedpistemology;amely,inorder o see how evidence elates otheory,ndinwhatwaysone's theory f natureranscendsnyavailableevidence.

The relation uine peaks fbetweenmeagernput"nd"torren-tial utput"s a causalrelation;t east t s qua causalrelationhatthe naturalizedpistemologistnvestigatest. It is none of thenaturalizedpistemologist'susinesso ssesswhether,ndtowhatdegree,he nput justifies"heoutput, ow givenrradiationfthe ubject'setinasmakes t reasonable"r"rational"or he ub-jectto emit ertainepresentationalutput. is nterests strictlycausal ndnomological:ewants sto ookfor atternsf awlikedependenciesharacterizinghe nput-outputelationsor his ar-ticular rganismndothers fa likephysicaltructure.If hissright,t makesQuine's ttempto relatehisnaturalizedepistemologyo traditionalpistemologyook t best ame.For nwhat ense s thestudy f causal relationshipsetween hysicalstimulationf ensory eceptorsndtheresultingognitiveutputa way of "seeinghow evidencerelates to theory" n anepistemologicallyelevantense? hecausalrelation etween en-sory nputnd ognitiveutputsa relationetween evidence"nd"theory";owever,t s not n evidentialelation. his anbeseenfromhe ollowingonsideration:henomologicalatternshat uineurgesus to look for re certainovaryfrom pecies o species,dependingntheparticular ay achbiologicalandpossiblyon-biological)pecies rocessesnformation,ut he videntialelationin tsproper ormativeensemustbstractromuchfactorsndconcern tself nlywith hedegree o which vidence upportshypothesis.Inany vent,he oncept f vidence s nseparableromhat fjustification.henwe talk f evidence"n nepistemologicalensewe aretalkingboutustification:nethings"evidence"or notherjustncase the irstends oenhancehe easonablenessr ustifica-


12/26

Whats "Naturalizedpistemology"?391tion f he econd. nd uch videntialelationsold npart ecauseofthe contents"fthe temsnvolved,otmerely ecause fthecausal rnomologicalonnectionsetween hem. strictlyonnor-mative oncept f evidence s notourconcept fevidence;tissomethinghatwe do notunderstand.20None fus, think, ouldwant o quarrelwithQuine bout heinterestr importancefthepsychologicaltudy f howoursen-sory nputausesour pistemicutput. his sonly osaythat hestudyfhumanorother indsf) ognitions of nterest.hat sn'tourdifficulty;urdifficultyswhether,nd nwhat ense, ursuingQuine's epistemology"s a wayofdoing pistemology-thats,awayof tudyinghow vidence elates otheory".erhaps, uine'srecommendationhatwe discardustification-centeredpistemologyis worth ondering;ndhisexhortationo take up the study fpsychologyerhaps eservesobe heeded lso.What smysteriousis why his ecommendationas to be coupledwith herejectionofnormativepistemologyif ormativepistemologys not possi-ble nquiry, hy houldn'thewould-bepistemologisturno, ay,hydrodynamicsr ornithologyather hanpsychology?).utofcourseQuine ssayingmore;he issayinghat nunderstandable,ifmisguided, otivationthat s, seeing howevidence elates otheory") oesunderlie urproclivitiesorndulgencennormativeepistemology,ut hatwewould ebetterervedy scientifictudyof human ognitionhannormativepistemology.

But t s difficulto ee how n"epistemology"hat asbeenpurg-edofnormativity,ne that acks nappropriateormativeonceptof ustificationrevidence,anhave nythingo dowith he on-cerns of traditional pistemology.And unless naturalizedepistemologyndclassical pistemologyhare ome f heirentralconcerns,t's ifficulto see how necould eplacethe ther,rbea way a better ay) fdoing heother.21o besure, hey othn-vestigatehow vidence elates otheory".utputtinghematterthisway anbemisleading,ndhasperhapsmisled uine: he wodisciplinesonot nvestigatehe amerelation.s ately oted, or-mativepistemologysconcerned ith he videntialelationrop-erlyso-called-thats, the relation f justification-anduine'snaturalizedpistemologys meant ostudyhe ausal-nomologicalrelation. orepistemologyo go outofthebusinessf ustificationis for tto go out of business.


13/26

392/ Jaegwon im5. BeliefAttributionnd RationalityPerhaps ehave aidenougho persuadeurselveshatQuine'snaturalizedpistemology,hiletmaybe a legitimatecientificn-quiry,s not kind fepistemology,nd, herefore,hat heques-tionwhethert is a better ind f epistemologyannot rise. nreply, owever,tmighte saidthat herewasa sense n whichQuine'spistemologyndtraditionalpistemologyould e viewed

assharingcommonubjectmatter,amelyhis:hey oth oncernbeliefs r "representations".heonly ifferences that heformerinvestigatesheir ausalhistoriesnd connectionshereashe at-ter s concerned ith heir videntialr ustificatoryropertiesndrelations.hisdifference,fQuines right,eads oanotherso con-tinues hereply): heformersa feasiblenquiry,he atters not.I nowwant o takemy rgumentstep urther:shall rgue hatthe oncept fbelief s itselfn essentiallyormativene,andinconsequencehatfnormativityswhollyxcluded rom aturaliz-edepistemologyt annotvenbethoughtf sbeingbout eliefs.That s, fnaturalizedpistemologystobea science fbeliefsrop-erly o called, t must resuppose normativeoncept fbelief.Briefly,he rguments this.norder o mplementuine's ro-gramfnaturalizedpistemology,e shallneed o dentify,nd n-dividuate,he nputndoutputfcognizers.he nput,orQuine,consistsfphysicalvents"the timulationf ensoryeceptors")and theoutputs saidto be a "theory"r"pictureftheworld"-thats, setof representations"f he ognizer'snvironment.etus focusnthe utput.nordero tudyhe ensorynput-cognitiveoutputelationsor hegiven ognizer,herefore,e must ind utwhat representations"e hasformeds a result ftheparticularstimulationshat avebeen pplied ohis ensoryransducers.et-tingsidethe argon, hatwe needtobe ableto do is to attributebeliefs,nd other ontentfulntentionaltates,o the ognizer.utbeliefttributionltimatelyequires"radicalnterpretation"f hecognizer,fhis peech nd ntentionaltates;hats,wemuston-structn"interpretiveheory"hatimultaneouslyssignsmeaningstohis tterancesnd ttributeso him eliefsndother ropositionalattitudes.22Even cursoryonsiderationndicateshatuch n nterpretationcannot egin-wecannot eta footholdn oursubject's ealm fmeaningsnd ntentionaltates-unless e assumehis otalystem


14/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?393ofbeliefsnd other ropositionalttitudesobelargelyndessen-tially ationalndcoherent. s Davidson asemphasized, givenbelief asthe ontentthas npart ecause f ts ocationna net-work fother eliefs ndpropositionalttitudes;nd what t bot-tomgroundshis etworksthe videntialelation,relationhatregulates hat s reasonableobelieve iven ther eliefsne holds.That s, unless ur cognizers a "rational eing", beingwhosecognitive output"s regulatednd constrainedy normsofrationality-typically,hese orms olisticallyonstrainisproposi-tionalttitudesnvirtue f heirontents-weannotntelligiblyn-terpretis"output"s consistingf beliefs. onversely,fwe areunable o nterpretur ubject's eaningsndpropositionalttitudesin a waythat atisfies minimaltandardfrationality,here s it-tlereason oregard ims a "cognizer",being hat ormsepresen-tationsndconstructsheories. hismeans hat heres a senseof"rational"n which he expressionrational elief" s redundant;everybeliefmust e rationaln certainminimal ays. t is notimportantor hepurposes f thepresent rgument hattheseminimaltandardsfrationalityre;theonly oint hatmatterssthat nless he utputfour ognizerssubjecto evaluationnac-cordance ith orms f ationality,hatutputannot e consideredas consistingfbeliefs nd hence cannotbe the objectof anepistemologicalnquiry,hetherlain rnaturalized.Wecanseparatehe oreof hese onsiderationsromontrover-sial ssuesnvolvinghe o-calledprinciplef harity", inimala-tionality,nd othermattersnthe heoryfradicalnterpretation.What scrucialsthis: orhe nterpretationnd ttributionfbeliefsto be possible, otonlymustwe assume heoverall ationalityfcognizers,ut lsowemustontinuallyvaluate ndre-evaluateheputativeeliefs f cognizerntheir videntialelationshipo oneanotherndother ropositionalttitudes.t s notmerelyhat eliefattributionequiresheumbrellassumptionbout heoverall a-tionalityfcognizers. ather,hepoints that eliefttributione-quires eliefvaluation,naccordance ith ormativetandardsfevidence nd ustification.f his s correct,ationalityn tsbroadand fundamentalense snot noptional ropertyfbeliefs,vir-tue hat omebeliefsmay njoy ndothersack; t s a preconditionoftheattributionnd individuationf belief-thats,a propertywithout hich heconcept f beliefwouldbe unintelligiblendpointless.


15/26

394/Jaegwon imTwo objections ight e raised ocounter hese onsiderations.First,nemightrgue hat tbest heyhow nly hat henormativityofbeliefsanepistemologicalssumption-thate need o assumetherationalityndcoherencefbeliefystemshenwe are tryingtofind utwhat eliefs o attributeo a cognizer.tdoesnotfollowfromhis pistemologicaloint,he bjectionontinues,hat he on-cept fbeliefs itself ormative.23nreplyingo this bjection, ecanby-passhe ntiressueofwhetherherationalityssumption

concernsnly heepistemologyfbelief ttribution.ven fthispremisewhich thinks ncorrect)sgranted,hepoint as lreadybeenmade.For t s an essential art f hebusiness fnaturalizedepistemology,s a theoryfhowbeliefsreformeds a result fsensory timulation,ofind ut whatparticulareliefshe givencognizers aveformed. ut his sprecisely hat annot e done,ifour considerationshow anythingt all, unless hewould-benaturalizedpistemologistontinuallyvaluates he utativeeliefsofhis ubjectsnregardo their ationalityndcoherence,ubjectto theoverall onstraintf the ssumptionhat hecognizersrelargelyational.henaturalizedpistemologistannot ispense ithnormativeonceptsrdisengageimselfrom aluationalctivities.Second,tmightethoughthatwecould implyvoid hese on-siderationstemmingrom elief ttributionyrefusingo thinkfcognitiveutputs consistingf beliefs",amelys states avingpropositionalontents.he representations"uine peaks f houldbetakensappropriateeuraltates,nd hismeans hat llwe needis tobe abletodiscern eural tates f rganisms.his equiresnlyneurophysiologyndthe ike, ot henormativeheory frationalbelief. y eplyakes he ormf dilemma:itherhe appropriate"neural tates re identifiedy seeing how theycorrelatewithbeliefs,24nwhich ase we still eedtocontend ith heproblemof adicalnterpretation,rbeliefsreentirelyy-passed.nthe at-tercase, belief, longwith ustification,ropsout ofQuineanepistemology,nd t sunclearnwhat enseweare eftwithn in-quiryhathasanythingo do with nowledge.256. The "Psychologistic"Approachto EpistemologyMany hilosophersow workingntheoryfknowledge avestressedhe mportancef ystematicsychologyophilosophical


16/26

Whats "Naturalizedpistemology"?395epistemology.easons rofferedorhisrevarious,nd oare theconceptionsf theproper elationshipetween sychologyndepistemology.26ut hey re virtuallynanimousn their ejectionofwhat hey ake o be theepistemologicalraditionf Descartesand tsmodernmbodimentsnphilosophersikeRussell, . . Lewis,Roderickhisholm,ndA. J.Ayer;ndtheyreunitedntheir n-dorsementhenaturalisticpproachfQuinewehavebeen onsider-ing.Traditionalpistemologys often ondemneds "aprioristic",and shavingost ightfhuman nowledges a productfnaturalcausalprocessesnd ts unctionnthe urvivalf he rganismndthe pecies. ometimes,he dherentsf thetraditionalpproachare taken o task or heirmplicitntiscientificiasor ndifferencetothenewdevelopmentsnpsychologyndrelatedisciplines.heirown pproachncontrasts hailed s "naturalistic"nd"scientific",betterttunedo ignificantdvancesnthe elevantcientificieldssuch as "cognitive cience" and "neuroscience", romisingphilosophicaleturnsar icherhanwhat he prioristicethodftraditionalpistemologyasbeen ble odeliver.We shall ere rief-ly considerhow thisnew naturalismn epistemologys to beunderstoodn relation o theclassic pistemologicalrogramndQuine'snaturalizedpistemology.Letus see howone articulateroponentf henew pproach x-plains hedistinctivenessf hispositionis-a-vishat fthetradi-tionalpistemologists.ccordingoPhilip itcher,he pproach erejectss characterizedy an "apsychologistic"ttitudehat akesthe difference etweenknowledge nd true belief-that s,justification-toonsistn wayswhichre ndependentf he ausalantecedentsf a subject'states".27itcher rites:28

...we canpresenthe heart f the psychologisticpproach]by consideringheway nwhicht would ackle hequestionfwhether person'srue eliefhat counts sknowledgehat . The idea wouldbe todisregardhepsychologicalife f the ubject,ookingust t thevariouspropositionshe believes.fp is connectedntheright ay'to other ropositionshich re believed,henwe count hesubject s knowinghat . Ofcourse, psychologisitcepistemologyillhave tosupply criterionor ropositionsto be 'connected n the rightway' ... but proponents f thisviewofknowledge ill mphasize hat hecriterions to be


17/26

396 / Jaegwon imgivenn ogical erms.We are concerned ithogicalrelationsmong ropositions,otwith sychologicalrelationsmongmental tates.

On the ther and,he sychologisticpproachonsidershe rucialdifferenceetween nowledgend truebelief-thats, epistemicjustification-tournn "the actors hichroducedhe elief",ocus-ing n "processes hich roduceelief, rocesses hich ill lwayscontain,t their atternd,psychologicalvents".29It is notentirelylearfrom hischaracterizationhetherpsychologisticheoryf ustifications to beprohibitedrommak-ing nyreferenceo ogical elationsmong elief ontentsit s dif-ficultobelieve ow theoryfustificationespectinguch blanketprohibitionould ucceed); or s it clearwhether,onversely,napsychologisticheory ill epermittedorefert all tobeliefsuapsychologicaltates,rexactly hatt s for theoryo do so. Butsuchpoints f detail reunimportantere; t s clear nough, orexample,hat oldman'sroposaloexplicateustifiedeliefsbeliefgeneratedy reliable elief-formingrocess30icely its itcher'scharacterizationfthepsychologisticpproach. his ccount,neformf he o-calledreliabilityheory"fustification,robablyaswhatKitcher ad inmindwhenhe was formulatingisgeneralcharacterizationf pistemologicalaturalism.owever,nothern-fluentialormf he eliabilityheoryoesnot ualifynder itcher'scharacterization.his sArmstrong'sroposal o explain he dif-ference etweenknowledgend truebelief, t least for non-inferentialnowledge,nterms f"a law-like onnectionetweenthe tate f ffairsof subject's elievinghat ] andthe tate faffairshatmakesp'trueuch hat, iven he tate f ffairsof hesubject'selievinghat ], tmust e the ase that."31There s hereno referenceo thecausal ntecedentsf beliefs,omethinghatKitcher equiresfapsychologisticheories.Perhaps,Kitcher's reliminaryharacterizationeeds to bebroadenedndsharpened. owever, salientharacteristicf henaturalisticpproach as already merged, hichwe canput sfollows:ustifications to be characterizedn terms f causalornomologicalonnectionsnvolvingeliefss psychologicaltates rprocesses,ndnot nterms f heogical ropertiesrrelationser-tainingo the ontentsfthesebeliefs.32Ifweunderstandurrentpistemologicalaturalismnthisway,


18/26

Whats "Naturalizedpistemology"?397how closely s it related o Quine's conceptionf naturalizedepistemology?heanswer, think,sobvious: otvery losely tall. nfact,t eems gooddealcloser otheCartesianraditionhantoQuine. or, s wesaw, he ifferencehatmattersetween uine'sepistemologicalrogramndthe raditionalrograms the ormer'stotal renouncementf the latter's ormativity,ts rejection fepistemologys a normativenquiry. he talkof "replacing"epistemologyith sychologys irrelevantnd atbestmisleading,thought ouldgiveusa momentaryelief rom sense fdepriva-tion.When ne bandonsustificationndother aluationaloncepts,one bandonshe ntirerameworkfnormativepistemology.hatremainss a descriptivempiricalheoryfhuman ognition hich,ifQuinehashisway,will e entirelyevoid f henotionfustifica-tion ranyother valuativeoncept.As I take t, his s notwhatmost dvocates fepistemologicalnaturalismre aiming t. By and large they re not Quineaneliminativistsnregard o ustification,nd ustificationn tsfull-fledged ormativeensecontinuesoplaya central ole ntheirepistemologicaleflections.herehey ifferromheir onnaturalistadversariessthe pecific ay nwhich riteriaf-justificationreto be formulated.aturalistsnd nonnaturalists"apsychologists")canagreethat hese riteria ust e statedndescriptiveerms-thats,withoutheuseof pistemicrany ther ind fnormativeterms. ccordingoKitcher,n apsychologisticheory f ustifica-tionwould tate hem rimarilyntermsf ogicalpropertiesndrelationsoldingor ropositionalontentsfbeliefs, hereas hepsychologisticpproachdvocates he xclusive se of ausalpro-pertiesndrelationsoldingor eliefss events r tates. anyradi-tionalpistemologistsay referriteriahat onferpon cognizera positionf pecial rivilegendresponsibilityith egardo theepistemictatus fhisbeliefs, hereasmost elf-avowedaturalistsprefer objective" r "externalist"riteria ithno such specialprivilegesor he ognizer. ut hesedifferencesreamong hosethat risewithinhefamiliarormativeramework,ndareconsis-tentwith he xclusionfnormativeermsn the tatementfthecriteria f ustification.Normativethics anserve s a usefulmodelhere.To claim hatbasic thicalerms,ike good"nd right",redefinablenthe asisofdescriptivernaturalisticermss onething;o nsisthat t s thebusiness fnormativethics oprovideonditionsr criteria or


19/26

398/Jaegwon im"good"nd right"ndescriptivernaturalisticermssanother. nemayproperlyeject heformer,he o-called ethical aturalism",as manymoral hilosophersavedone, nd hold he atter;hereis no obviousnconsistencyere.G.E. Moore s a philosopherhodid ust hat.As is wellknown, e was a powerfulritic fethicalnaturalism,olding hatgoodnesss a "simple" nd"nonnatural"property.t thesame time,he held that thing's einggood"follows"rom tspossessingertainnaturalisticroperties. ewrote:33I shouldneverhave thoughtf suggestinghat oodnesswas'non-natural',nless had supposedhat t was derivative'nthe ensethat,whenever thingsgood inthe ense nquestion)tsgoodness..'depends nthepresence fcertainnon-ethicalharacteristics'ossessed y thethingnquestion: havealways upposedhatt did so 'depend',nthe ensethat,f thingsgood in my ense), hen hat t s

so followsfrom he factthat tpossessescertainnaturalintrinsic roperties..Itmakes ense o think fthese naturalntrinsicroperties"romwhich thing's einggood is thoughto follow s constitutingnaturalisticriteriafgoodness,rat east ointingothe xistenceof uch riteria. ne canreject thical aturalism,hedoctrinehatethicalonceptsredefinitionallyliminablenfavor fnaturalisticterms,nd t the ame ime old hatthical roperties,r he scrip-tion f thical erms, ust egovernedynaturalisticriteria.t sclear, hen, hatwe are hereusing naturalism"mbiguouslyn"epistemologicalaturalism"nd"ethical aturalism".n ourpre-sentusage, pistemologicalaturalismoes not ncludenordoesitnecessarilyxclude)he laim hatpistemicermsredefinitionallyreducibleo naturalisticerms.Quine'snaturalisms eliminative,thought s not definitionalliminativism.)If, herefore,e locate he split etween uine nd traditionalepistemologyt thedescriptives.normativeivide,hen urrentlyinfluentialaturalismnepistemologys not ikelyo fall nQuine'sside.Onthis escriptives.normativessue,necan idewith uinein one of twoways: first,ne rejects,withQuine,the entirejustification-basedpistemologicalrogram;rsecond,ike thicalnaturalistsutunlike uine, ne believes hat pistemiconceptsarenaturalisticallyefinable.doubt hat erymany pistemological


20/26

What s "Naturalizedpistemology"?399naturalistsill mbrace itherf these lternatives.347. Epistemicupervenience-OrWhyNormativepistemologyIs PossibleButwhy houldwe thinkhat heremust e naturalisticriteriaof ustifiedelief ndother erms f pistemicppraisal?fwe take

thediscoveryndsystematizationf uch riteriao be the entraltaskofnormativepistemology,s there nyreason othink hatthis ask anbe fruitfullyursued,hatnormativepistemologysa possible ield f nquiry?uine's oints that t s not.We havealreadynotedthe limitationf Quine'snegative rgumentsn"Epistemologyaturalized",ut s there positive eason or hink-ing hat ormativepistemologys a viable rogram?necould on-sider similaruestionbout hepossibilityfnormativethics.I thinkheresa shortndplausiblenitialnswer,lthoughdetail-ed defensef twould nvolveomplex eneralssues boutnormsandvalues. he hortnswersthis: e believenthe upervenienceof pistemicropertiesn naturalisticnes, ndmore enerally,nthesuperveniencef all valuationalnd normativeropertiesnnaturalisticonditions.his omes ut nvariousways.We think,with .M.Hare,35hatf wopersonsracts oincidenalldescrip-tive rnaturalisticetails,hey annot iffernrespectfbeing oodor right,r anyother aluational spects.We also thinkhat fsomethings"good" a "good ar", gooddrop hot",good rgu-ment"-thenhatmust e so"invirtuef" ts eing "certain ay",thats, tshavingertainfactual roperties".eing good ar, ay,cannot e a brute nd ultimateact: car s goodbecause t hasacertainontextuallyndicatedet fpropertiesavingodowith er-formance,eliability,omfort,tyling,conomy,tc.The amegoesforustifiedelief:f beliefs ustified,hatmust e so because thas certain actual, onepistemicroperties,uch s perhapshatit s"indubitable",hat t sseen obe entailedy notherelief hatis ndependentlyustified,hat t s appropriatelyausedbypercep-tual xperience,r whatever.hat t s a justifiedeliefannot ea brute undamentalact nrelatedo thekind fbelieft s. Theremust e a reasonfort, nd this easonmust e groundedn thefactual escriptiveropertiesf hat articularelief.omethingikethis, think,s whatwe believe.


21/26

400/Jaegwon imTwoimportanthemes nderlie hese onvictions:irst,alues,thougherhapsot educibleofacts, ust e "consistent"ithhemin hatbjectshat re ndiscerniblenregardofactmuste ndiscer-nible n regard o value; second, heremust e nonvaluational"reasons" r "grounds" or heattributionfvalues, nd these"reasons" r "grounds"mustbe generalizable-thats, they recovered yrules r norms. hesetwo deascorrespondo "weaksupervenience"nd"strongupervenience"hat havediscussed

elsewhere.36elief n the superveniencef value upon fact,arguably,sfundamentalo thevery onceptsfvalueand valua-tion.37nyvaluationaloncept,o be significant,ust e govern-edby setof riteria,ndthese riteria ust ltimatelyest nfac-tualcharacteristicsndrelationshipsfobjects ndevents eingevaluated. here ssomethingeeplyncoherentbout he dea ofan nfinitelyescendingeries fvaluationaloncepts,achdepen-ding ntheone below t as itscriterionfapplication.38It seems ome,therefore,hat pistemologicalupervenienceswhat nderliesurbeliefn he ossibilityfnormativepistemology,and thatwe do not neednewinspirationsrom hesciences oacknowledgehe xistence fnaturalisticriteriaor pistemicndother aluationaloncepts.he case ofnormativethicssentirelyparallel: eliefn thepossibilityfnormativethicssrootednthebeliefhatmoral ropertiesndrelationsre upervenientponnon-moral nes.Unlesswe arepreparedo disown ormativethics sa viablephilosophicalnquiry,e hadbetterecognize ormativeepistemologys one, oo.39Weshould ote, oo, hat pistemologyis ikelyoparallel ormativethicsnregard othedegree owhichscientificesultsre relevantrusefulo tsdevelopment.40ayingthis f ourse eaves arge oom or isagreementoncerningowrelevantnduseful,f t all, mpiricalsychologyfhumanmotiva-tion nd ction anbe tothedevelopmentndconfirmationfnor-mative thical heories.41n anyevent, nce thenormativityfepistemologys clearly aken note of, it is no surprise hatepistemologyndnormativethicshare he amemetaphilosophicalfate.Naturalizedpistemology akesnomore,nd noless, ensethannaturalizedormativethics.42Notes1. In making hese emarks am onlyrepeatinghe familiarextbook


22/26

What s "Naturalized pistemology"? 401historyfphilosophy;owever,hat ur extbooksay bouthehistoryofa philosophicaloncept as much o do with urunderstandingfthat oncept.2. AlvinGoldmanxplicitlytates his equirements a desideratumfhis wn nalysisf ustifiedeliefn WhatsJustifiedelief?",nGeorgeS. Pappas ed.),JustificationndKnowledgeDordrecht:eidel, 979),p. 1.Roderick .Chisholm'sefinitionf being vident"nhisTheoryofKnowledge,nd d. Englewoodliffs,.J.: rentice-Hall,1977)oesnot atisfyhis equirements itrests ltimatelyn an unanalyzedepistemiconceptfone belief eingmore easonablehan nother.What oes he eal criteriological"ork or hisholms his principlesof vidence".eeespeciallyA)onp.73ofTheoryfKnowledge, hichcanusefullye regardedsanattemptoprovide onnormative,escrip-tive onditionsor ertain ypes f ustifiedeliefs.3. Thebasic deaof his trongerequirementeems mplicitnRoderickFirth's otion f warrant-increasingroperty"n his Coherence,er-tainty,ndEpistemicriority",ournalfPhilosophy1 1964): 45-57.It eems hatWilliam . Alston as omethingimilarnmindwhen esays, ... ike ny valuativeroperty,pistemicustificationsa superve-nient roperty,he pplicationfwhichs based n more undamentalproperties"atthis oint lston efersoFirth's aper ited bove), n"TwoTypes f oundationalism",ournalf hilosophy3 1976): 65-85(the uoted emarkccurs np. 170).Although lstonoesn't urtherexplainwhat e means y more undamentalroperties",he ontextmakestplausibleo upposehat e has nmind onnormative,escrip-tiveproperties.ee Section belowfor urtheriscussion.4. SeeChisholm,bid., . 14.HereChisholmefersoa "person'sespon-sibilityrduty ua intellectualeing".5. This erm asusedbyA.J. yer ocharacterizehe ifferenceetweenlucky uessingndknowing;eeTheProblemfKnowledgeNew ork& London: enguin ooks, 956), . 33.6. Notably yChisholmnTheoryfKnowledge,st d.,ch.4.7. See Rudolf arnap, TestabilityndMeaning",hilosophyfScience3 (1936), nd4 (1937).Weshould lso note hepresencefa strongcoherentisttreakmong omepositivists;ee, e.g.,CarlG.Hempel,"OntheLogical ositivists'heoryfTruth", nalysis (1935): 9-59,and Some emarksn Facts'ndPropositions",nalysis 1935): 3-96.8. InW.V.Quine, ntologicalelativityndOther ssays New ork: ol-umbia niversityress, 969). lso eehisWordndObjectCambridge:MIT ress, 960); heRootsfReferenceLaSalle,ll.: penCourt,973);(with oseph llian)heWeb fBeliefNew ork: andomouse, 970);and speciallyTheNaturefNatural nowledge"n amuel uttenplan(ed.),MindndLanguageOxford:larendonress, 975). ee FrederickF.Schmitt'sxcellentibliographynnaturalisticpistemologynHilaryKornblithed.),NaturalizingpistemologyCambridge:IT/Bradford,1985).9. Or confirmationalelations,iven hePositivists'erificationistheoryofmeaning.


23/26

402 /JaegwonKim10. I know fno serious efensef t inceAyer's heFoundationsfEm-pirical nowledgeLondon:Macmillan,940).11. "Epistemologyaturalized",p. 75-76.12. Ibid., . 78.13. To useanexpressionfRichard orty'snPhilosophynd theMirrorofNaturePrinceton:rincetonniversityress, 979), . 11.14. Elliottobermakes similar oint: And n the uestion fwhetherthefailuref a foundationalistrogrammehows hat uestions fjustificationannot eanswered,t sworth otinghat uine's dvice'SinceCarnap's oundationalismailed, hynot ettle or sychology'carries eightnly othe egreehat arnapianpistemologyxhauststhe ossibilitiesf pistemology",n Psychologism",oumalfTheoryofSocialBehaviour (1978):165-191.15, See Chisholm,heory fKnowledge,nded.,ch. 4.16. "Ifwe areseekingnly he ausalmechanismf urknowledgef heexternal orld,ndnot justificationf hat nowledgentermsriorto science..", Quine, Grades fTheoreticity",n L. FosterndJ.W.Swanson eds.), Experience nd Theory Amherst: niversityfMassachusettsress, 970), . 2.17. Ibid., . 75.Emphasisdded.18. Ibid., . 78.Emphasisdded.19. Ibid., . 83.Emphasisdded.20. But ren't herehosewho dvocate "causal heory"f vidence rjustification?want o maketwo brief oints boutthis. irst,henomologicalr causal nput/outputelationsre not nthemselvesevidentialelations, hetherhese atterre understoodausally rotherwise.econd, causal heoryf videncettemptso tateriteriafore is evidence or " ncausal erms;ven f his ssuccessful,tdoesnotnecessarilyiveus a causal definition"r "reduction"f he on-ceptof evidence. ormoredetails ee section below.21. 1 mnot ayinghat uine sunderny llusionnthis oint. y emarksaredirectedathertthosewho ndorse uinewithout,t eems, clearappreciationfwhat s involved.22. Here amdrawinghieflynDonald avidson's ritingsn radicaln-terpretation.ee Essays , 10, nd11inhis nquiriesntoTruthndInterpretationOxford: larendonress, 984). ee alsoDavidLewis,"Radicalnterpretation",ynthese7 (1974): 3144.23. Robert udi uggestedhis s a possible bjection.24. For omeconsiderationsendingo show hat hese orrelationsan-not e awlikeeemy Psychophysicalaws",nErnestePorendBrianMcLaughlineds.), ctionsndEvents: erspectivesn the hilosophyofDonaldDavidsonOxford:lackwell,985).25. For moreympatheticccount fQuine hanmine,eeHilary orn-blith'sntroductoryssay,WhatsNaturalisticpistemology?",nKorn-blithed.),Naturalizingpistemology.26. Seeformore etails lvin.Goldman,pistemologyndCognitionCam-bridge: arvard niversityress, 986).27. TheNature fMathematicalnowledgeNewYork:Oxfordniversity


24/26

What s "Naturalized pistemology"? 403Press, 983), . 14.28. Ibid.29. Ibid., . 13. should ote hat itcheronsidershe psychologisticp-proach o be an aberrationf he wentiethenturypistemology,srepresentedy philosophersikeRussell,Moore,C.I. Lewis, ndChisholm,atherhan n historicalharacteristicf heCartesianradi-tion.n "ThePsychologicalurn", ustralasianournalfPhilosophy60 (1982): 38-253, ilary ornblithives nanalogousharacteriza-tion f he wo pproacheso ustification;e associates justification-conferringrocesses" ithhe sychologisticpproachnd epistemicrules"with he psychologisticpproach.30. See Goldman,What s Justifiedelief?".31. DavidM.Armstrong,ruth,eliefndKnowledgeLondon: ambridgeUniversityress, 973), . 166.32. Theaptnessf his haracterizationf he apsychologistic"pproachfor hilosophersikeRussell,hisholm,eith ehrer,ohn ollock,tc.canbedebated. lso,heresthe ssue f internalism"s. externalism"concerningustification,hichbelievemust edistinguishedromhepsychologistics.apsychologisticivision.33. Moore,AReply o MyCritics",n P.A.Schilpped.),ThePhilosophyofG.E.Moore Chicago Evanston: penCourt, 942), . 588.34. Richard orty'slaim,which lays prominentole n his rgumentsagainstraditionalpistemologynPhilosophynd heMirrorfNature,that ocke ndothermodernpistemologistsonflatedhenormativeconceptf ustificationith ausal-mechanicalonceptss tselfased,Ibelieve, na conflationfust hekindamdescribingere. ee Ror-ty, bid., p.139ff.gain,he riticalonflationonsistsn not eeingthat heview,whichbelievescorrect,hatpistemicustification,ikeanyother ormativeoncept,must avefactual,aturalisticriteria,is entirelyonsistent ith herejectionf hedoctrine,hich thinkis incorrect,hat ustificationtselfs,or s reducible o, naturalistic-nonnormativeoncept.35. TheLanguagefMoralsLondon:xfordniversityress, 952), .145.36. See "ConceptsfSupervenience",hilosophynd PhenomenologicalResearch 5 (1984):153-176.37. Ernest osa, oo, onsiderspistemologicaluperveniences a specialcase of he uperveniencefvaluationalropertiesn naturalisticon-ditions,n TheFoundationfFoundationalism",ous 4 1980): 47-64;especially . 551.See also James anCleve'snstructiveiscussionnhis Epistemicuperveniencend theCircle fBelief",heMonist 8(1985): 0-104; specially,p.97-99.38. Perhapsnecould void his ind f riteriologicalegress y mbrac-ing irectlypprehendedaluationalropertiesas n thicalntuitionism)onthebasis fwhichriteriaor ther aluationalropertiesould eformulated.hedenial f he uperveniencefvaluationalonceptsnfactualharacteristics,owever, ould ever he ssentialonnectionbetween alue ndfact nwhich,t eems,hewhole ointf ur alua-tional ctivitiesepends.n he bsence f uch upervenience,he ery


25/26

404 / JaegwonKimnotion f valuationwould ose its significancend relevance. heelaborationf hese oints, owever, ouldhaveto wait or notheroccasion;ut eeVanCleve's aper ited n he recedingote ormoredetails.39. Quinewillnotdisagree ith his: e will naturalize"hem oth. orhis iews nvaluesee "TheNaturefMoral alues"nAlvin.GoldmanandJaegwon imeds.),Values ndMoralsDordrecht:eidel, 978).For discussionf he elationshipetween pistemicndethicalon-cepts ee Roderickirth,Are pistemiconcepts educibleoEthicalConcepts?"n the amevolume.40. Fordiscussionsfthis ndrelatedssues ee Goldman,pistemologyand Cognition.41. For detailedevelopmentf normativethicalheoryhat xemplifiestheview hat t s cruciallyelevant,ee Richard .Brandt, Theoryof theGood ndtheRightOxford:he Clarendonress, 979).42. An arly ersionf his aperwasread t meetingf heKoreanocie-tyforAnalytichilosophyn 1984 nSeoul.Anexpanded ersion aspresentedt a symposiumt theWestern ivisionmeetingsf theAmerican hilosophical ssociation n April, 1985, and at theepistemologyonferencet BrownUniversityn honor f RoderickChisholmn 1986. amgratefuloRichardoley ndRobert udiwhopresentedelpfulommentsttheAPA essionndtheChisholmon-ferenceespectively.amalso ndebtedoTerence organndRobertMeyers orhelpfulommentsndsuggestions.

ReferencesAlston, illiam .,"TwoTypes fFoundationalism"ournalfPhilosophy73 (1976):165-85.Armstrong,avidM., Truth, elief nd KnowledgeLondon: ambridgeUniversityress, 973).Ayer, .J., heFoundationsfEmpirical nowledgeLondon:Macmillan,1940).Ayer, .J., he roblemfKnowledgeNew ork London: enguinooks,1956).Brandt, ichard .,A Theory f the Goodand theRight Oxford:heClarendonress, 979).Carnap, udolf,TestabilityndMeaning",hilosophyf cience (1936),and4 (1937).Chisholm,oderick .,TheoryfKnowledge,nded. (Englewood liffs,N.J.: rentice-Hall,977).Davidson,Donald, nquiries nto Truth nd InterpretationOxford:Clarendonress, 984).Firth, oderick,Coherehce,ertainty,ndEpistemicriority",ournalfPhilosophy1 (1964): 45-57.Firth, oderick,AreEpistemiconcepts educibleo Ethical oncepts?"in Goldman, lvin1. and Jaegwon im eds.),Values nd Morals


26/26

What s "Naturalized pistemology"? 405(Dordrecht:eidel, 978).Goldman, lvin ., "What s Justifiedelief?",nGeorge . Pappas ed.),Justificationnd Knowledge Dordrecht:Reidel,1979).Goldman, lvin.,EpistemologyndCognitionCambridge:arvard ni-versity ress, 986).Hare, .M., he anguagefMoralsLondon: xfordniversityress, 952).Hempel, arlG., On theLogical ositivists'heory fTruth", nalysis(1935): 9-59.Hempel, arlG., SomeRemarksn Facts' ndPropositions",nalysis(1935): 3-96.Kim, Jaegwon, "Concepts of Supervenience", Philosophy andPhenomenologicalResearch 65 (1984): 153-176.Kim, Jaegwon, Psychophysicalaws", in ErnestLePore and BrianMcLaughlineds.),Actions nd Events:Perspecties n the Philosophyof Donald Davidson (Oxford:Blackwell,1985).Kitcher, hillip, he Nature fMathematical nowledge New York:OxfordUniversityress, 983).Kornblith, ilary,The Psychologicalurn",Australasian ournal fPhilosophy60 (1982): 238-253.Kornblith, ilary, ed.), NaturalizingpistemologyCambridge:MIT/Bradford,985).Kornblith,ilary,What s Naturalisticpistemology?",n Kornblithed.),Naturalizing pistemology.Lewis,David, Radicalnterpretation",ynthese 7 (1974):331-44.Moore, .E., AReply oMyCritics",n P.A.Schilpped.),ThePhilosophyof G. E. Moore Chicago Evanston: pen Court, 942).Quine,W.V.,WordndObjectCambridge: ITPress, 960).Quine,W.V.,OntologicalRelativityndOtherEssays NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityress, 969).Quine,W.V., with oseph llian), he WebofBeliefNewYork:RandomHouse,1970).Quine,W.V.,Grades fTheoreticity",nL.FosterndJ.W.Swansoneds.),ExperiencendTheoryAmherst:niversityfMassachusettsress,1970).Quine,W.V., heRoots fReferenceLaSalle, L,:OpenCourt, 973); uine,W.V., TheNaturefNatural nowledge"nSamuelGuttenplaned.),Mind ndLanguage Oxford:larendonress, 975).Quine,W.V.,TheNaturefMoral alues"nAlvin .GoldmanndJaegwonKim eds.),Values nd Morals Dordrecht:eidel, 978).Rorty, ichard, hilosophy nd the Mirror f Nature Princeton: rincetonUniversityress, 979).Sober,Elliott,Psychologism",ournalfTheory fSocial Behavior8 (1978):165-191.Sosa,Ernest,TheFoundationfFoundationalism",ous14 1980): 47-64.VanCleve,James,EpistemicuperveniencendtheCircle fBelief",heMonist 8 (1985)" 0-104.

kim1988_epistemologynaturalized

Documents