Stances and Epistemology: Values, Pragmatics, and Rationality

Boucher, Sandy C.

doi:10.1111/meta.12317

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our theoretical framework mobilizes theories and epistemological stances from International Law and International Relations (Boucher, 2018). They provide the models to test our hypothesis at both local and international levels of analysis.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translocal Implications of the Green Belt and Road Initiative: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Case

Castro¹,

Wang²

2023

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its inception in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been surrounded by doubts and fears. Some were confirmed, and some were dismissed, because they were groundless or due to adjustments. One of the most critical adjustments was the environmental dimension in the BRI projects, reflecting China's internal environmental concerns. The enactment of the constitutional rule pursuing ecological civilization can translate to increasing environmental security within the investments in the recipient countries. The hypothesis in the study is that adopting the green BRI incorporates the ecological civilization concept, which refers to a myriad of transnational efforts by China to increase environmental security within its partners. In addition, it includes a constructivist perspective that considers ideational factors that do not happen at the level of the current neoliberal international institutions. Finally, this paper deploys the content analysis technique to seek sufficient empirical evidence to confirm the hypothesis and point out new research directions and limitations.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translocal Implications of the Green Belt and Road Initiative: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Case

Castro¹,

Wang²

2023

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mas, novamente, assim é a vida. E, novamente, se alguém deseja levar o problema mais longe e alegar que terra-planistas coerentes não são apenas insensatos, mas também irracionais, então isso comete uma petição de princípio contra o voluntarismo (para defesas detalhadas da ideia de que o voluntarismo não implica anarquia epistêmica, ver TELLER 2011;SCHOENFIELD 2014;CHAKRAVARTTY 2015;2017;BOUCHER 2018;ELDER 2019).…”

Section: Objeção 2: Voluntarismo Implica Irracionalidadeunclassified

O Voluntarismo de Van Fraassen

Malavolta e Silva

2023

Princípios

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Em The Empirical Stance, van Fraassen propõe o voluntarismo de posturas epistêmicas: é racional tudo o que é racionalmente permitido, e apenas a incoerência é racionalmente proibida. O voluntarismo de posturas é uma concepção permissiva de racionalidade, que permite a um agente escolher qual postura epistêmica adotar, onde uma postura epistêmica é entendida como um feixe de atitudes avaliativas (e.g. admirar, priorizar) acerca de como formar conhecimento. A vantagem proclamada pelo voluntarismo é a sua capacidade para explicar a racionalidade de revoluções científicas: a aceitação de novos paradigmas não decorre do seguimento de regras metodológicas fixas, mas expressa uma escolha de aderir a um novo sistema de valores e posturas epistêmicas. Defendo que o voluntarismo enfrenta um dilema entre duas situações insatisfatórias: ou assume o conservadorismo epistêmico (i.e. que nossas crenças atuais possuem justificação prima facie) e torna-se incapaz de explicar a racionalidade das revoluções científicas; ou rejeita o conservadorismo epistêmico, e torna-se incapaz de criticar sistemas cognitivos alternativos, por mais absurdos que sejam (desde que coerentes). De um modo ou de outro, o voluntarismo oferece uma epistemologia incompleta para cumprir as finalidades postuladas por van Fraasen.

show abstract

“…A graded ranking of stances and sciences may therefore be more viable. As Hasok Chang (2020) suggests, "responsible pluralism" involves the ranking of "epistemic systems" rather than "equal validity" (see also Boucher 2018). Epistemic systems are not equivalent to epistemic stances, butas will become apparent -Chang's suggestion carries over from the former to the latter.…”

Section: A Way Forward: On Constraining Epistemic Stancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stance Pluralism, Scientology, and the Problem of Relativism

Merwe

2022

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by Bas van Fraassen's Stance Empiricism, Anjan Chakravartty has developed a pluralistic account of what he calls epistemic stances towards scientific ontology. In this paper, I examine whether Chakravartty's stance pluralism can exclude epistemic stances that licence pseudo-scientific practices like those found in Scientology. I argue that it cannot. Chakravartty's stance pluralism is therefore prone to a form of debilitating relativism. I consequently argue that we need (1) some ground or constraint in relation to which epistemic stances can be ranked by degrees, and (2) some way to demarcate science from pseudoscience so that we know what epistemic stances are about. Regarding (1), I argue that empirical detectability can serve as the ground in relation to which epistemic stances are ranked by degrees. Regarding (2), I argue for ranking sciences on a continuum according to established institutional criteria, rather than attempting to draw a strict demarcation.

show abstract

Stances and Epistemology: Values, Pragmatics, and Rationality

Cited by 6 publications

References 40 publications

Translocal Implications of the Green Belt and Road Initiative: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Case

Translocal Implications of the Green Belt and Road Initiative: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Case

O Voluntarismo de Van Fraassen

Stance Pluralism, Scientology, and the Problem of Relativism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About