ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of The erotetic epistemology: a primerDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3X40M

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Graduate Studies and Research, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Theses and Dissertations

The erotetic epistemology: a primer Open Access

Descriptions

Other title
Subject/Keyword
Questions
Epistemology
Contrastive knowledge
Type of item
Thesis
Degree grantor
University of Alberta
Author or creator
Buenting, Joel M
Supervisor and department
Morton, Adam (Philosophy)
Examining committee member and department
Hunter, Bruce (Philosophy)
Linsky, Bernard (Philosophy)
Leighton, Jacqueline (Education)
Hetherington, Stephen (Philosophy)
Department
Department of Philosophy
Specialization

Date accepted
2011-08-30T19:21:50Z
Graduation date
2011-11
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree level
Doctoral
Abstract
One way of “doing” philosophy is to choose a topic of investigation, proceed in depth narrowly on an analysis of that topic; then to apply the results widely. I follow this strategy in my dissertation. The topic I investigate narrowly is “questions”; then I emphasize its applications in epistemology. Since an analysis of questions has consequences for the ways it makes sense to think about knowledge, framing my project in terms of the erotetic epistemology seems natural, though it is novel. The best developed erotetic epistemology is contrastive knowledge. Contrastivists about knowledge say ‘knows’ denotes the ternary relation “s knows p rather than q”. The contrastive view thus conflicts with the standard view in epistemology according to which ‘knows’ denotes the binary relation “s knows p”. I argue that knowledge within an erotetic framework cannot be contrastive. So, after detailing the contrastive view (Chapters 1 & 2) and its application in epistemology (Chapters 3 & 4), I argue that certain types of questions are clear counterexamples to the contrastive interpretation of the erotetic epistemology (Chapter 6). In route, I defend contrastive knowledge against objection in the literature (Chapter 5).
Language
English
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3X40M
Rights
Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission.
Citation for previous publication

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-04-28T20:38:41.866+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 733148
Last modified: 2015:10:12 14:39:09-06:00
Filename: Buenting_Joel_Fall 2011.pdf
Original checksum: c8c97c7c92457a0648e57f3218488374
Well formed: true
Valid: true
File title: Microsoft Word - Whole thesis _Repaired_
File author: Novice
Page count: 124
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date