Epistemological Implications of Relativism

Abstract

Relativists about knowledge ascriptions think that whether a particular use of a knowledge-ascribing sentence, e.g., "Keith knows that the bank is open" is true depends on the epistemic standards at play in the assessor's context-viz., the context in which the knowledge ascription is being assessed for truth or falsity. Given that the very same knowledge-ascription can be assessed for truth or falsity from indefinitely many perspectives, relativism has a striking consequence. When I ascribe knowledge to someone (e.g., when I say that, at a particular time, "Keith knows that the bank is open"), what I've said does not get a truth-value absolutely, but only relatively. If this semantic thesis about the word "knows" and its cognates is true, what implications would this have for epistemology, the philosophical theory of knowledge? The present aim will be to engage with this mostly unexplored question, and then to consider how the epistemological conclusions drawn might bear on the plausibility of a relativist semantics for "knows".

Evaluating a potential role for community pharmacists in post‐bariatric patient nutritional support

“…is and what knowledge actually constitutes is also a paramount consideration, since it impacts on the capacity that bariatric surgical teams and community pharmacists have to react to it in practice. 28 Critical reflection and the capacity for reflexivity in the context of decision-making now characterizes the majority of medical and allied health and social care professions. 29 This has entrenched the notion of an ethical stance as an integral part of professional practice.…”