epistemologists

The fact is that this questions have been asked and tried to answer many times by scientists, philosophers and epistemologists.

On the one hand, people are bad epistemologists and lots of countries manage with similarly limited jury trials.

Even epistemologists in the analytic tradition have begun to move away from Cartesianism due to its limitations.

This isn't some whim of epistemologists, this is because the task is very hard and simple 'its the current year' rhetoric does not resolve the problems with knowledge justification.

There is a reason epistemologists have long defined knowledge as justified true belief, not just incidentally lucking into being correct.

Until the smart people, philosophers & epistemologists, share the proper phrase with plebes like me.

These are dramatically philosophical, but also dispatched by epistemologists for a long time now.

Only the most naive of epistemologists assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it requires mathematical assistance.

Feminist epistemologists note the way this kind of thinking affects marginalized groups of people.

Yeah, because professors of philosophy and epistemologists toil for years about the subject, but some 2-minute comment shows it for what it is...

I could easily imagine epistemologists, philosophers of science, and scientists productively publishing together in methodology-of-science journals and attending methodology conferences.

I will not try to ask why this happens, many epistemologists have tried to.

[2] [2] I sense epistemologists warming their guns here, asking if the "existence" of "nothing" counts as the existence of "something".

Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I believe that epistemologists are wrong to consider "knowledge by testimony" necessarily based on trust, or at least the role of trust in it is overrated and the phrase "knowledge by testimony" is doubtful to start with.

(but I'm sure there are plenty of "epistemologists" and "philosophers" who could debate them in minute detail until the end of time) But Chomsky isn't claiming obvious truisms - he's claiming fairly detailed laws about universal grammar (and fairly detailed means through which they derive) Critics point out such fairly strong claims need fairly strong, in your face evidence.

Epistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge.

Epistemologists confine themselves to the world of epistemology.

Epistemologists understand this very well.