[FRIAM] J. Carter — collective virtue epistemology

[Prof David West]

I promised to read and comment, so here goes.

I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how people judge something to be "true."

Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the article compelling in some way.

Some questions:

1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example. 

2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the trials, a super majority of the trials?

3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?

4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent ambiguity of language?

4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")

5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?

6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)

7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)

As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters with other cultures.

Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to denigrate applied math.

davew