In particular: (Observation) For any observational proposition p, if it visually seems to S that p and circumstantial conditions D obtain, then S is prima facie justified in believing p.However the superimposition of these epistemic principles or strategies on the classic pramanas as argued over by the classic darshanas ends up falsifying their nature.
Deduction) If S is justified in believing p, and p fairly obviously entails q, then S is justified in believing q. (Induction) If S has often enough observed that an event of type A has been followed by an event of type B, then S is justified in believing that all events of type A will be followed by events of type B.
4
(And perhaps also Ganeri)
(Inference to the best explanation) If S justifiably believes that p, and justifiably believes that the best explanation for p is q, then S is justified in believing q.
Ganeri:
Indian epistemology in general is an analysis of pramanas, methods for interrogating reality, sources of warranted belief. A pramana is, more or less, what Boghossian means by an epistemic principleHere at this point Ganeri makes what I consider to be the fundamental mistake of mapping the Boghossian system onto the Pramanas in a way which distorts them.
Their names for Observation, Deduction, Inference to the Best Explanation, and Testimony are, respectively, pratyaksa, anumana, arthapatti, and sabda. Yet they might have forgiven him, for they also discussed and disagreed among themselves whether Testimony is a fundamental or a derived epistemic principle, and they were, in general, fully cognizant of the importance of establishing a basic set of underived epistemic principles.
I would hold that he is wrong in principle and wrong in detail. ‘Observation’ is not the same as ‘Perception’/pratyaksa. An observation is a focussed form of perception. What Indian philosophers debated was the validity and nature of perception as such.
Anumana (Inference) is not deduction but more like induction or a judgment based on invariable concomitance.
Arthapatti (Presumption) is not inference to the best explanation/abduction. There is no sheaf of explanations out of which we select one. It is a simple switch. Given that he is alive, Ram is in his house or not.
Finally Sabda or Testimony is the reliance on information from a trustworthy source. Ganeri’s dismissal of Revelation (Vedas) as an accepted valid means of knowledge is not correct.
Indian versions of Revelation and Oracle, for instance, were largely dismissed.
In the closing pages of his paper Ganeri offers an egregious piece of self-stultification:
Dogmatism about the actual practices and modes of production that constituted nineteenth-and early twentieth-century European science combined with a belief in the appropriateness of the use of violence to suppress other stances to constitute the epistemic stance of European colonialism: {European Colonialism} Use the epistemic principles in accordance with the conventions of nineteenth-and twentieth-century European scientific communities, and do so dogmatically, using violence against anyone who disagrees. While it is not the case that dogmatism per se entails the endorsement of violence.While no violence was used in the writing of this paper clearly the superimposition of Boghossian’s epistemic principles on the Pramanas leads to distortion and erosion of a significant way of grappling with the problem of knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment