Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /

THIS ESSAY was begun a long time ago, in 1962, when I spent a year in Rome on a Guggenheim Fellowship. That twenty one years were required to complete it is owing both to the character of the theory presented and to my peculiar habits of mind. The theory presented is a coherence theory of knowledge: the con­ ception of coherence is here dominant and pervasive. But considera­ tions of coherence dictate an attention to details. The fact of the matter is that I get hung up on details: everything must fit, and if it does not, I do not want to proceed. A second difficulty was that all the epistemological issues seemed too clear. That may sound weird, but that's the way it is. I write philosophy to make things clear to myself. If, rightly or wrongly, I think I know the answer to a question, I can't bring myself to write it down. What happened, in this case, is that I finally became persuaded, in the course of lecturing on epistemology to under­ graduates, that not everything was as clear as it should be, that there were gaps in my presentation that were seriously in need of filling.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ziff, Paul. author., SpringerLink (Online service)
Format: Texto biblioteca
Language:eng
Published: Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands : Imprint: Springer, 1984
Subjects:Philosophy., Epistemology., Philosophy and science., Philosophy of Science.,
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7697-0
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id KOHA-OAI-TEST:225980
record_format koha
spelling KOHA-OAI-TEST:2259802018-07-31T00:06:48ZEpistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge / Ziff, Paul. author. SpringerLink (Online service) textDordrecht : Springer Netherlands : Imprint: Springer,1984.engTHIS ESSAY was begun a long time ago, in 1962, when I spent a year in Rome on a Guggenheim Fellowship. That twenty one years were required to complete it is owing both to the character of the theory presented and to my peculiar habits of mind. The theory presented is a coherence theory of knowledge: the con­ ception of coherence is here dominant and pervasive. But considera­ tions of coherence dictate an attention to details. The fact of the matter is that I get hung up on details: everything must fit, and if it does not, I do not want to proceed. A second difficulty was that all the epistemological issues seemed too clear. That may sound weird, but that's the way it is. I write philosophy to make things clear to myself. If, rightly or wrongly, I think I know the answer to a question, I can't bring myself to write it down. What happened, in this case, is that I finally became persuaded, in the course of lecturing on epistemology to under­ graduates, that not everything was as clear as it should be, that there were gaps in my presentation that were seriously in need of filling.I Linguistic Preliminaries -- II Actives and Passives -- III Reference -- IV Coherence -- V Hypostasis -- VI Knowledge -- VII Knowing How -- VIIII Various Uses -- IX Conditions -- X A Position to Know -- XI Analysis -- XII Skepticism -- XIII A Safe Position -- XIV Demons, Angels and Miracles -- XV Risk and Gravity -- Kreb’s Epilogue -- Notes.THIS ESSAY was begun a long time ago, in 1962, when I spent a year in Rome on a Guggenheim Fellowship. That twenty one years were required to complete it is owing both to the character of the theory presented and to my peculiar habits of mind. The theory presented is a coherence theory of knowledge: the con­ ception of coherence is here dominant and pervasive. But considera­ tions of coherence dictate an attention to details. The fact of the matter is that I get hung up on details: everything must fit, and if it does not, I do not want to proceed. A second difficulty was that all the epistemological issues seemed too clear. That may sound weird, but that's the way it is. I write philosophy to make things clear to myself. If, rightly or wrongly, I think I know the answer to a question, I can't bring myself to write it down. What happened, in this case, is that I finally became persuaded, in the course of lecturing on epistemology to under­ graduates, that not everything was as clear as it should be, that there were gaps in my presentation that were seriously in need of filling.Philosophy.Epistemology.Philosophy and science.Philosophy.Epistemology.Philosophy of Science.Springer eBookshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7697-0URN:ISBN:9789401576970
institution COLPOS
collection Koha
country México
countrycode MX
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
En linea
databasecode cat-colpos
tag biblioteca
region America del Norte
libraryname Departamento de documentación y biblioteca de COLPOS
language eng
topic Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy of Science.
spellingShingle Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy of Science.
Ziff, Paul. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
description THIS ESSAY was begun a long time ago, in 1962, when I spent a year in Rome on a Guggenheim Fellowship. That twenty one years were required to complete it is owing both to the character of the theory presented and to my peculiar habits of mind. The theory presented is a coherence theory of knowledge: the con­ ception of coherence is here dominant and pervasive. But considera­ tions of coherence dictate an attention to details. The fact of the matter is that I get hung up on details: everything must fit, and if it does not, I do not want to proceed. A second difficulty was that all the epistemological issues seemed too clear. That may sound weird, but that's the way it is. I write philosophy to make things clear to myself. If, rightly or wrongly, I think I know the answer to a question, I can't bring myself to write it down. What happened, in this case, is that I finally became persuaded, in the course of lecturing on epistemology to under­ graduates, that not everything was as clear as it should be, that there were gaps in my presentation that were seriously in need of filling.
format Texto
topic_facet Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Epistemology.
Philosophy of Science.
author Ziff, Paul. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_facet Ziff, Paul. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_sort Ziff, Paul. author.
title Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
title_short Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
title_full Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
title_fullStr Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
title_full_unstemmed Epistemic Analysis [electronic resource] : A Coherence Theory of Knowledge /
title_sort epistemic analysis [electronic resource] : a coherence theory of knowledge /
publisher Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands : Imprint: Springer,
publishDate 1984
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7697-0
work_keys_str_mv AT ziffpaulauthor epistemicanalysiselectronicresourceacoherencetheoryofknowledge
AT springerlinkonlineservice epistemicanalysiselectronicresourceacoherencetheoryofknowledge
_version_ 1756270921949118464