Epistemic Relativism

[jgweed]

There is always a paradox in saying something like "it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist." This tells us more about the rules of language than it does invalidate the conclusion.
Not having read the text in question, I am, though, confused about the first premise, perhaps because I do not understand how "epistemic facts" could "justify" anything.

[boagie]

Yo!

I am confused myself on this topic, to my way of thinking all knowledge all meanings is biologicallly dependent, truth is the experience and evaluation of the relation between subject and object, there is no absolute truth that can be said to objectively exist. That truth and/or meaning can be socially conditioned is a given I think, not from the experience of sensation but through the conditioned power of our process of understanding.

[Theaetetus]

Welcome to my confusion. I am stuck in a class called the Theory of Knowledge which is an epistemology course.

Many philosophers believe that epistemic facts must be justified to count as knowledge. Epistemic facts help justify beliefs that individuals hold. In science the speed of light, acceleration rate, etc are examples of epistemic facts. I guess the point is do the observations justify the theory. According to epistemic relativism E=mc^2 is equally as valid as saying that the will of god is responsible for energy.

Honestly, I am as confused as the rest of you. I was just trying to see if there was a way out of the confusion.

[boagie]

Theaetetus,

See how they respond to a nihilistic understanding of the fact that the physical world is without meaning in the absence of a subject, that apparent reality is a biological readout. There are no facts no meaning without a subject, if the speed of light is a given, it is given through the perception of a subject, indeed without the subject there is no light.

[jgweed]

Well, one could always say that "facts" are what we want them to be depending on the way we are looking at them at the time. I think it is a mistake to think of facts with only one "picture" of them in our minds and then make judgments based on that picture alone. For example, there are scientific "epistemic facts" such as the speed of light or the exemplars of the law of gravity, and there are other kinds of facts, such as Springfield is the capitol of Illinois that have other grounds for acceptance (perhaps the verifiability principle might be one of them).

It might not be the case, again, that there are observations on the one hand, and theories on the other. There is a constant interplay between the two, and it may be that this process actually is creative of what is real about both.

[Theaetetus]

Boagie,
I agree with you that the physical world is meaningless without a subject. Without a subject to experience phenomena, did said phenomena even happen or exist. I also think that throwing one's arms up and saying, oh well, its all relative anyway is far more nihilistic than observing that subjects give the world meaning.

jgweed,
I think academic philosophers have a tendency to look at the world like it is a static existence and the fail to see living processes. For example, the interplay between observations and theories. Our observations formulate theories and then our observations confirm or deny them which may even change the way in which we observe the world, which in turn will formulate new theories.