Skip to main content

English speaking epistemologists

According to Leiter Reports, the most important English-language world epistemologists since 1945 have been:

W.V.O. Quine  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Alvin Goldman  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 131–100
3. Roderick Chisholm  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 145–90, loses to Alvin Goldman by 117–90
4. Wilfrid Sellars  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 142–80, loses to Roderick Chisholm by 110–106
5. Timothy Williamson  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 148–100, loses to Wilfrid Sellars by 122–118
6. Ernest Sosa  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 152–95, loses to Timothy Williamson by 123–107
7. Tied:
Fred Dretske  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 156–78, loses to Ernest Sosa by 121–90
Edmund Gettier  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 160–78, loses to Ernest Sosa by 114–105
9. Donald Davidson  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 158–53, loses to Fred Dretske by 120–93
10. William Alston  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 164–70, loses to Donald Davidson by 99–96
11. Tied:
Laurence BonJour  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 164–64, loses to William Alston by 88–82
Nelson Goodman  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 163–50, loses to William Alston by 98–96
13. Robert Nozick  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 169–52, loses to Laurence BonJour by 102–90
14. Gilbert Harman  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–41, loses to Robert Nozick by 94–90
15. John McDowell  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 168–58, loses to Gilbert Harman by 95–89
16. Tyler Burge  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 170–49, loses to John McDowell by 91–88
17. Alvin Plantinga  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 173–62, loses to Tyler Burge by 99–73
18. Barry Stroud  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 173–39, loses to Alvin Plantinga by 95–78
19. Keith Lehrer  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 175–42, loses to Barry Stroud by 81–78
20. Crispin Wright  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 183–34, loses to Keith Lehrer by 84–76
21. Keith DeRose  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–41, loses to Crispin Wright by 82–78
22. Robert Audi  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–42, loses to Keith DeRose by 81–72
23. David Armstrong  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–28, loses to Robert Audi by 70–67
24. Paul Boghossian  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–40, loses to David Armstrong by 74–66
25. Richard Feldman  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 175–47, loses to Paul Boghossian by 75–72
26. Philip Kitcher  loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–33, loses to Richard Feldman by 74–72

I'm afraid some of these names don't mean anything to me at all, and that is true even of some of them fairly high up on the list. If I am going to run a blog with the name of this blog, I ought to do a better job keeping track. Timothy Williamson, Crispin Wright. Paul Boghossian? Not even names to me.

Ernest Sosa, John McDowell, Tyler Burge, on the other hand, ARE all names to me, but only that. I couldn't give a coherent explanation of the context in which I discovered them. 

Some names on this list have an appropriate prominence in my own mental inventory. Quine, of course. Nozick. Plantinga/ Armstrong. Check, Check, and Check.

But in essence the list tells me I have work to do. Let's get started with those three names that meant nothing. I'll run down something quick on each of them.

Timothy Williamson: known for taking knowledge as a primitive term. This is one way of responding to Gettier problems. Knowledge is a primitive notion, requiring no definition, and other notions, such as truth and belief,  should be defined with reference to knowledge, not vice versa.  

Crispin Wright: Associated with neo-Fregeanism, a/k/a neo-logicism in the philosophy of mathematics. Frege tried to derive arithmetic from logic. His views are often thought to have been buried by Russell, Russell's barber, and/or Godel. But Wright and some others have dusted them off. 

Paul Boghossian: Author of Fear of Knowledge (2006). a blast against Rorty, relativism, and constructivism. (Why is Rorty not on the list?). 

So now I know that much, anyway.


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…