Hot Topics in Epistemology?

So what are the "hot" topics/problems in epistemology these days?  Contextualism?  Disagreement?  What else?  The more detail the better, and feel free to post links to on-line resources (papers, blog discussions, etc.).  If this generates a good response, I'll probably run similar threads on other areas of philosophy in the coming weeks and months.  Remember to post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Comments

[Sandy Goldberg]

This is a nice thing to think about, thanks for the question. I'll start with my own laundry-list, which would include the following: the revival of formal epistemology that is now (I think it's safe to say) flourishing; the folks doing "experimental philosophy," who (through Stitch, Weinberg, Nichols, and others) are having an impact on contemporary epistemology (although their influence will likely transcend subdisciplinary borders within philosophy); discussions on the (epistemic) norm of assertion have been very hot (both on its own, but also in conjunction with contextualism -- itself still a hot topic, owing to work by DeRose, and the various forms of invariantist responses by e.g. Stanley, Hawthorne); there are very interesting issues pertaining to conceivability and the a priori, largely taking place among those interested in two-dimensional semantics, but with what to my mind is clear epistemological import (Jackson, Chalmers); the value-of-knowledge question (thanks largely to the work of Kvanvig); virtue epistemology appears to be set to become a central topic (Sosa has new two books developing a virtue epistemology, and there is the seminal work of Linda Zagzebski); epistemic luck (thanks largely to the work of Duncan Pritchard); social epistemology (thanks largely to the work of Alvin Goldman); and yes, the debates about disagreement, which to some extent grew out of the (still lively) debates about the epistemology of testimony, but which have definitely taken on a life of their own (see papers by A. Elga, T. Kelly, D. Christiansen, among others; and I'd also like to plug the work of my colleague, Jennifer Lackey, who has written excellent things on both testimony and disagreement). Of course, no one could be said to adequately characterize the contemporary scene without noting the influence of Williamson's KNOWLEDGE AND ITS LIMITS (I put this in its own category). In short, the epistemology scene is really vibrant right now. I don't really know how to make more fine-grained discriminations (relative hotness).

For those interested what various prominent epistemologists have to say for their own epistemological projects going forward, I recommend the aptly-titled EPISTEMOLOGY FUTURES (ed. S. Hetherington, OUP).

Sorry for the laundry list. I blame Brian for raising this nice question!

[Steven Hales]

Maybe I'm just biased here, but I think that relativism is a pretty hot topic right now. There have been several recent books on it (e.g. mine, Boghossian, Baghramian, O'Grady, Kolbel, one forthcoming by McFarlane), and numerous articles. A couple of years ago there was an issue of The International Journal of Philosophical Studies solely on relativism, the entire latest issue of Episteme is on epistemic relativism, and there is a special issue of Synthese coming out in the spring devoted to relativism.

Another hot topic is the evidential status of intuitions. Lots of people are interested in it, including E. Sosa and Williamson. Not to mention the experimental philosophers, who make intuition their poster child for what's wrong with rationalism.

[Craig French]

A few issues i'd mention that haven't been mentioned yet: The Know-how/Know-that distinction, important papers by Snowdon and Williamson and Stanley, also a new paper in the aforementioned Hetherington book, by Hetherington, taking a different line of this issue. Also, the notion of entitlement in epistemology (see the great stuff by Crispin Wright (loads of papers!), and Martin Davies too.)

[Chris Green]

My dissertation was on the epistemology of testimony, memory and perception: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005782

I'm trying to start a hot new field of importing legal concepts into epistemology (see also chapter 5 of the dissertation), but I can't say it's catching on much: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007156

[Andrew Roche]

An interesting question. I am not an epistemologist, so I cannot contribute. But I'd certainly find it useful to know, in addition to what epistemologists think are "hot" topics, what topics or projects have run their course over the past ten or twenty years. That might give a more accurate picture of the state of the field.

[Corey Maley]

It may be possible to get an empirical answer to the question of what counts as a hot topic in some academic discipline. Jeff Zacks and I did this in psychology, using a variation on the h-index; maybe someone should try it for epistemology, or philosophy as a whole? Here's the paper on what we found:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2154

I'd certainly be interested to see how objective measures of "hot" topics in philosophy match up with what people perceive to be "hot".

[Clayton Littlejohn]

Like Sandy, I think that we'll be responding to Williamson's _Knowledge and its Limits_ for some time to come. I wanted to mention two additional topics.

First, there is some really good work on theoretical deliberation and epistemic normativity. I do not have a good name for this area of research, but I do have a bad one. Call it 'the moral psychology of epistemology'. Or, if you'd rather not, come up with a better name of your own and tell me what it is. I have in mind here Jonathan Adler's _Beliefs Own Ethics_, David Owens' _Reason without Freedom_, and some papers by Pamela Hieronymi, Nishi Shah, and David Velleman on a set of interconnected issues having to do with the kind of control we exercise over belief, the relationship between an account of theoretical deliberation and an account of epistemic reasons, and attempts to uncover the norms of theoretical reason by exploring different paradoxes of belief.

Second, there is the recent discussion of the epistemic norms used to evaluate assertion, action, and the beliefs that lead one to assert and act (DeRose, Hawthorne, Stanley, Williamson, Weiner). My guess is that because of this increased attention on the links between belief, action, and assertion, an increasing number of epistemologists will follow Chris Green's lead in importing legal concepts into epistemology or draw on the work being done by moral philosophers on justification and normative reasons. It seems that this trend is having a significant impact on the internalism/externalism debate and discussions of reasons for belief and will continue to do so.

The name escapes me at the moment, but there's some relatively unknown young guy from SMU who is doing some really interesting work in both of these areas. Last I heard, he was looking for a tenure track job and I believe he could be hired for a song.

[Andrei Buckareff]

Epistemic normativity and axiology, including how epistemic norms relate to practical norms is a hot topic. I suspect this is due in large part to the growth of interest in virtue epistemology. Also, related issues (e.g., doxastic agency, epistemic akrasia) at the intersection of epistemology, action theory, and moral psychology seem to be getting a good deal of attention. Issues related to epistemic agency seem to enjoy the attention of more than just epistemologists.

[Fritz Warfield]

I make no attempt at being exhaustive:

1. The intersection of and interaction between various strands of “formal” and “traditional” epistemology either is hot or should be hot. In fact, if this isn’t hot it’s embarrassing that it isn’t hot.

2. The disagreement topic is still hot, and hopefully will get hotter when a volume of new papers on the topic that Rich Feldman and I are editing appears.

3. Moorean stuff and transmission failure stuff and other topics in this neighborhood are still hot, though maybe people are pausing for breath and reflection at the present moment.

4. A variety of strands under the virtue epistemology umbrella are still hot. And these will likely get hotter when the 2nd of Ernie Sosa’s two new monographs appears.

5. Some “pragmatic encroachment” stuff is hot, though I hope someone cools this one off soon.

6. Some old school topics appear to be hot, including retro-Gettier material, re-examinations of coherentist theories of justification and knowledge, varieties of skeptical arguments and relations between them, and a motley collection of issues that involve trying to understand evidence or, perhaps better, different kinds of evidence.

7. Modal epistemology and issues about the justification of basic and non-basic inferential practices seem to be taking a few deep breaths / pausing for reflection. But I suspect that won't last long.

[Andrei Buckareff]

Clayton,

For what it is worth, in my dissertation on doxastic agency I followed Linda Zagzebski and referred to what you called (following Owens, no doubt) "the moral psychology of epistemology" as epistemic psychology. Just as moral psychology lies at the intersection of moral philosophy and the philosophy of mind and action, epistemic psychology lies at the intersection of epistemology, the philosophy of mind and action, and moral psychology. In any case, it's all about understanding what it means to be an epistemic agent, working out the implications for thinking about epistemic normativity.

[Fritz Warfield]

By the way, perhaps I misunderstand what Sandy said, but I think the contemporary roots of the disagreement literature are in the 1980s-ish religious epistemology literature, and not in the more recent testimony literature.

[Sandy Goldberg]

Fritz,

Point taken regarding the disagreement literature; I probably should have said "with ideological links to" the testimony debate.

Also, I wanted to mention -- but forgot -- that for those interested in the links between "traditional" and "formal" epistemology, there is a wonderful newish book out that I would highly recommend: Vincent Hendricks' MAINSTREAM AND FORMAL EPISTEMOLOGY (Cambridge UP). It's worth a look.

And -- since no one else has mentioned them, but those in epistemology know all about them -- there are the blogs. The Leiter Report itself lists a good many of them on the side of the page; for our part we at Northwestern have listed what we (or some of us, at any rate) regard as blogs in M&E that are worth following. The list can be found on our LEMMings@Northwestern site:

http://www.wcas.northwestern.edu/epistemology/

It's under "Links" at the top banner.

Sandy

[Peter Momtchiloff]

Epistemology of wine, surely?

[Sandy Goldberg]

Peter,

If OUP comes out with such a book, sign me up.

Sandy

[Alex]

These have been helpful posts. Where possible, could people indicate whether the "hot" topics are (in the view of the poster) on the way in, on the way out, here to stay, etc? I have heard that epistemic modality is losing some hotness. I'd be interested to know (due to my current status as a student) which topics are likely to still be hot in 4 or 5 years.

[Jonathan Ichikawa]

Sandy, OUP's collection on the philosophy of wine is here:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/FoodWine/WineSpirits/?view=usa&ci=9780195331462

Glancing at the titles of the pieces, it seems clear to me that chapters two, eight, and nine are plausibly described as engaging with the epistemology of wine.

[anon]

I thought I'd mention that this sort of topic is particularly helpful for those of us who, for one reason or another, have taken time off before applying to grad school. For many of us, esp. those with day jobs, commutes and/or other commitments, knowing what's going on in a given field is half the battle in our (perhaps naive) attempts to "stay sharp."

Of course, as goes for most anything helpful or instructive, we may have some concerns about those who might take the implications of these sorts of posts and suggestions too far (much like the PGR..).

[Richard Fitch]

Well nobody else is going to do this so I might as well. I'm a 'continental' epistemologist. Given most of 'our gang' don't do the truth thing we have to work on basic philosophical questions. Not the recent article that our mate or former teacher/supervisor wrote. I have articulated a post-Wittgensteinian solution to the Agrippan/Munchausen trilemma. Not that anyone cares. But old fashioned scepticism regarding justification is as far as many continentals go. It's often foundational. Of course the Hegelians have far more interesting things to say.

[Ed Hackett]

Speak for yourself Mr. Richard Fitch. I've been filling out PhD apps wanting to make Husserl relevant to a more analytic context in meta-ethics, but certainly there are features overlooked in epistemology as well. The frustrating thing past phenomenology is the abandonment of the ideal for truth as a norm for which we philosophers ought to strive (obviously I would need to spell out this claim and argue for it more than blanket assertion). Of course, I think that continentals should eliminate much of the crap that holds for their version of philosophy while extracting what is good.

Hentry Pietersma's "Phenomenological Epistemology" Oxford: Oxford U. P, 2000 is an excellent work in the direction much needed for what might constitute a continental contribution to epistemology.

[Leslie Marsh]

It is my view that the hottest topics in epistemology are meta-topics:

- the relationship between traditional epistemology and "analytical" or "veritistic" **social** epistemology;

- the relationship between analytical social epistemology and the sociological tradition of social epistemology

Two more specific topics I'd say are hot:

- the knowing how/knowing that distinction (already mentioned above);

- stigmergic epistemology (where mind and social epistemology meet)

A paper on the latter can be found at:

http://consc.net/cgi/go.fcgi?id=MARSES&free=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emanwithoutqualities%2Ecom%2Fstigmergic%2Epdf

Since Goldman made the study of social epistemology a respectable enterprise for analytical epistemologists, epistemology has become one of the most fertile and exciting areas of philosophy.

[John Turri]

Leslie,

You're definitely right about Goldman's seminal contribution to the rise of social epistemology. It's perhaps also worth mentioning that the social dimensions of knowledge feature importantly in Plantinga's and Alston's religious epistemology, beginning in the 80s (not limited to testimony, which Fritz Warfield already correctly mentioned earlier in the thread), as well as feminist and virtue epistemology starting from around the same time.

[Bradley J Rettler]

21 comments, and no mention of Bergmann and/or "Justification Without Awareness?" I'm not an epistemologist, but I thought the book was fascinating and I assumed it was being discussed. Am I incorrect?

[Matthew]

Bradley,

Bergmann's book is excellent, but I suspect it hasn't been mentioned for two reasons. The first reason the book hasn't been mentioned is that the internalism/externalism debate isn't hot, though it generates a lot of heat. The second reason is that proper functionalist theories of justification simply aren't that popular or hot.

[Clayton Littlejohn]

21 comments, and no mention of Bergmann and/or "Justification Without Awareness?"

I do not find this terribly surprising. There are a great many very good books that have come out in the past few years, Bergmann's book seems to be among them, but I do not think that people think it has the potential to significantly change the way things are done in the way that Williamson's Knowledge and its Limits did. The book did not seem to introduce new issues to the literature in the way that Kvanvig's book on the value of knowledge or Prichard's book on epistemic luck did. Again, I'm not saying this to slight Bergmann. He wrote an excellent book developing an original position and I'm sure it is getting plenty of attention. But, the book does not introduce a hot new topic to discuss or a hot new way of thinking about old topics.