LEADER 03124nam  22004575  450 
001 9910300622803321
005 20200705052420.0
010   $a3-319-94673-0
024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-319-94673-3
035   $a(CKB)4100000005323240
035   $a(DE-He213)978-3-319-94673-3
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC5472960
035   $a(EXLCZ)994100000005323240
100   $a20180721d2018      u|         0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurnn|008mamaa
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$aEpistemic Relativism and Scepticism $eUnwinding the Braid /$fby Steven Bland
205   $a1st ed. 2018.
210  1$aCham :$cSpringer International Publishing :$cImprint: Palgrave Macmillan,$d2018.
215   $a1 online resource (XII, 234 p.) 
311   $a3-319-94672-2 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
327   $aChapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: The Principal Argument for Epistemic Relativism -- Chapter 3: Epistemic Relativism in the Analytic Tradition -- Chapter 4: Foundationalism and Coherentism -- Chapter 5: Externalism -- Chapter 6: Particularism and Methodism -- Chapter 7: The Charge of Incoherence -- Chapter 8: The Wittgensteinian Position -- Chapter 9: A Dialectical Strategy -- Chapter 10: Conclusions.
330   $aThis book confronts the threats of epistemic relativism and Pyrrhonian scepticism to analytic philosophy. Epistemic relativists reject absolute notions of knowledge and justification, while sceptics claim that knowledge and justification of any kind are unattainable. If either of these views is correct, then there can be no objective basis for thinking that one set of methods does a better job of delivering accurate information than any other set of methods. Philosophers have generally sought to resist these threats by responding to the argument that seems to motivate both positions: the Agrippan trilemma. Steven Bland argues that this is a mistaken strategy. He surveys the most influential responses to the Agrippan trilemma, and shows that none of them succeeds in undermining epistemic relativism. Bland also offers a new, dialectical strategy of challenging epistemic relativism by uncovering how epistemic methods depend on one another for their applications. By means of this novel analysis, the book concludes that there are principled reasons to prefer naturalistic to non-naturalistic methods, even if these reasons do little to ease the threat of scepticism.
606   $aEpistemology
606   $aElections
606   $aEpistemology$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/E13000
606   $aElectoral Politics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911070
615  0$aEpistemology.
615  0$aElections.
615 14$aEpistemology.
615 24$aElectoral Politics.
676   $a120
700   $aBland$b Steven$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$0974378
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910300622803321
996   $aEpistemic Relativism and Scepticism$92218305
997   $aUNINA