【作者】 李静；

【导师】 曹剑波；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 外国哲学， 2021， 博士

【摘要】 “知道”是人们日常生活中常见的字眼,判断某人是否知道某事也是一种常见的言语行为。在知识论中,人们对“S知道p”的断言称之为知识归赋。本世纪初以来,虽然知识归赋的理论门类繁多,但是学界对大众知识归赋则关注较少。随着实验哲学的兴起和当代知识论的“实践转向”,大众知识归赋进入了知识论研究视野。相关研究主要涉及大众如何理解和运用知识概念以及在什么条件下进行知识归赋。本文凭借实验知识论的研究结果,探究大众知识归赋的实用敏感性,并试图从目的论路径以广义语境主义来解释其合理性。大众知识归赋被认为是一种认知探究活动,在人们的生活实践中发挥重要作用,既可用于标识出可靠的信息来源,也可用于评价认知者的行为。其特征主要表现为:既有认知上的知识表征,又有知识论理论上的反思平衡;既具描述性,又具规范性;既保留理智主义的传统底色,又受非理智因素影响。根据实验知识论的研究结果,在对知识概念的理解和运用上,大众在是否具有葛梯尔型直觉和知识三元要素的必要性上存有分歧。针对确证非必要性问题,学者们提出了确证规范性理由和实用规范性理由之分;针对信念非必要性问题,提出了当下信念和倾向性信念,薄信念和厚信念之分;针对“真”非必要性问题,提出了“真”和“似真性”之分,指出大众日常知识归赋的非事实性的面向。在知识归赋的方式上,大众知识归赋受风险、道德、审美、实践利益、实践理由等实用因素影响。这对于秉持理智主义的主流知识论提出了挑战。本文分别从语境主义和实用侵入视角讨论知识归赋的实用敏感性。二者的一致性在于它们都涉及风险、实践利益等实用因素影响某人的信念能否成为知识,但又各有侧重。认知语境主义者强调归赋者的实践语境影响知识标准。实用侵入者强调认知者的实践语境影响其认知立场强度是否满足知识标准。具体来说,语境主义者德娄斯主张风险因素影响知识标准高低;柯亨主张风险因素影响证据是否充足;刘易斯主张实用因素影响需要排除的相关选择项。实用侵入者霍桑、斯坦利、范特尔和麦克格拉斯主张从知识和行动的关系考察实践考量在知识归赋中的作用。实用因素成为知识的构成性条件,以较强的方式侵入知识;它还可以通过影响信念、证据,间接地影响知识归赋,以温和的方式侵入知识。然而,语境主义和实用侵入又分别受到不变主义和理智主义的质疑。针对这些质疑,本文从知识归赋的目的和功能出发,以广义语境主义解释大众知识归赋的实用敏感性,并从以下方面论证其合理性:其一,广义语境可以消弭归赋者和认知者语境的分歧,广义语境内涵不仅包括归赋者语境、认知者语境,也包括社会实践语境。因此,知识标准不仅仅随归赋者、认知者实践语境,也随所在群体的实践语境而变;其二,知识归赋语句真值由是语义和语用含意共同决定,有利于人们获得稳定的知识归赋结果,也有助于达到知识归赋语句的断言和其真值之间的平衡;其三,广义语境主义可以调和语境主义与主体敏感不变主义和利益相关不变主义的对立,使得语境主义和实用侵入相一致,缓和实用侵入与理智主义之间的张力。总之,大众知识归赋具有实用敏感性,在理智主义者看来,认知者的信念能否成为知识只与真值相关因素有关,而与实用因素无关。然而,从知识归赋的目的和功能来看,大众知识归赋的实用敏感性有其合理性。大众对知识概念的理解和运用对当代知识论理论建构不无裨益。虽然大众知识归赋存在诸多问题,但是对它的讨论扩展了当代知识论的研究范围和方式,大众知识归赋也将逐步成为当代知识论研究重要一维。更多还原

【Abstract】 Knowing is a common word in people’s daily life.It is the most common speech act to judge whether someone knows something.The assertion of "S knows p" is called knowledge attribution in epistemology.Recent years,there have been many disputes over the theory of knowledge attribution,but less attention is paid to how folks carry out epistemic practice activities.With the rising tide of experimental philosophy and "practical turn" of contemporary epistemology,folk epistemology has entered the field of epistemological research,which appeals to folk epistemic intuition,exploring how folks use knowledge concept and under what conditions they attribute knowledge.This dissertation,resorting to the empirical study of folk’s epistemic intuition,with teleological approach,attempts to explore the practical sensitivity of folk knowledge attribution,and to explain its rationality from generalized contextualism.Folk knowledge attribution is defined as a kind of heuristic process,which plays an important role in people’s social life and practice.On the one hand,it can be used to flag out reliable sources of information,on the other hand,it can be used to evaluate the behavior of agent.Its main characteristics include:the unity of epistemic representation and epistemological reflection;the unity of descriptiveness and normativity;the coexistence of intellectualism to non-intellectualism.Based on the empirical study of folk’s epistemic intuition,this dissertation attempts to discuss the divergence between folk’s concept of knowledge and the traditional definition of knowledge--the sufficient and necessary condition of JTB.In response to these challenges,it distinguishes between justifying normative reasons and pragmatic normative reasons.As to the necessary condition of belief,it distinguishes between present belief and dispositional belief;thin belief and thick belief;as to the necessary condition of "truth ",it distinguishes between"truth" and "approximation of truth",leading to the non-factual orientation of folk knowledge attribution.Then,contrary to purism,studies from experimental epistemology demonstrate that folk knowledge attribution is affected by pragmatic factors such as stake,moral factors,aesthetics,practical interests and reasons.It then explains the practical sensitivity of folk knowledge attribution from two perspectives:contextualism and pragmatic encroachment.They are consistent,for both theories involve practical interests,yet each has its own focus.Contextualism emphasizes on attributor’s practical context affect epistemic standards;pragmatic encroachment emphasizes on subject’s practical context affect his strength of epistemic position.To be precise,contextualists,DeRose focuses on the influence of stake on epistemic standards;Cohen on the requirements for more evidence;Lewis on the pragmatic sensitivity of alternatives that need to be excluded.Pragmatic encroachers,John Hawthorne,Jason Stanley and Jeremy Fantl and Matthew McGrath,all examine the role of practical reason in knowledge attribution from the relationship between knowledge and action.On the one hand,practical reason becomes the constitutive condition of knowledge justification and invades knowledge in a strong way;on the other hand,it indirectly affects knowledge attribution by influencing belief and evidence,and invades knowledge in a modest way.However,contextualism and pragmatic encroachment are questioned by invarianticism and intellectualism respectively.To solve these problems,based on the purpose and function of knowledge attribution,it explains the practical sensitivity of folk knowledge attribution from the point of view of generalized contextualism,and elaborates its rationality from the following aspects.First,it could eliminate the differences between attributor’s context and subject’s context,for generalized context includes not only the attributor’s and subject’s context,but also social and practical context,which altogether determines epistemic standards.Then,semantic and pragmatic interface interaction is regarded as the linguistic basis of truth value of the knowledge attribution sentence,it is good for the stability of knowledge attribution,and helpful for achieving balance between the assertion and truth value of knowledge attribution sentence.Last but not least,generalized contextualism has its advantages.On the one hand,it could respond to the questions of subject-sensitive invariantism and interests-relevant invariantism.On the other hand,from Edward Craig’s functional view of knowledge attribution,it could make contextualism and pragmatic encroachment consistent,and mitigate the challenges from intellectualism.In conclusion,folk knowledge attribution is sensitive to pragmatic factors.While intellectualists hold that whether subject’s belief can be regarded as knowledge only related to truth-related factors.However,from the point of view of the purpose of knowledge attribution,it is reasonable that the folk knowledge attribution shows pragmatic and contextual sensitivity.After all,folk knowledge attribution is beneficial to knowledge theorizing.Folks’ cognition and application of the knowledge concept should not be ignored.This dissertation systematically examines pragmatic factors that affect knowledge attribution and finds that the discussion of it helps to expand the scope and mode of contemporary epistemology.Although there are still many doubts on it,it will become an important dimension of contemporary epistemology.更多还原