Cited 0 time in
Indirect Verification and Historical Inquiry as a Parasitic Epistemic Practice
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Jong-Pil | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-01-13T07:30:14Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-01-13T07:30:14Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1572-3429 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1875-8185 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.dongguk.edu/handle/sw.dongguk/56677 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | This paper explores indirect verification in pragmatism and its impact on historical inquiry. Indirect verification, as articulated by William James and John Dewey, addresses the challenge of historical knowledge within pragmatism by confirming ideas about past events based on the consistency among their present effects, the ideas themselves, and anticipated future consequences. The paper identifies and discusses key challenges related to indirect verification, such as the 'coherence verification fallacy,' the 'dilemma of interpreting historical consequences,' and the issue of 'methodological indirect verification.' It argues that indirect verification does not substantiate historical interpretations but instead illuminates the nature of historical inquiry. Historical inquiry, it contends, operates as a parasitic epistemic practice, relying on the relationship between the present effects of the past, anticipated future developments, and everyday problem-solving practices. © 2024 Jong-pil Yoon. | - |
| dc.format.extent | 24 | - |
| dc.language | 영어 | - |
| dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
| dc.publisher | Brill Academic Publishers | - |
| dc.title | Indirect Verification and Historical Inquiry as a Parasitic Epistemic Practice | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.publisher.location | 네델란드 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1163/18758185-bja10095 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85212077294 | - |
| dc.identifier.wosid | 001416588500002 | - |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Contemporary Pragmatism, v.21, no.4, pp 357 - 380 | - |
| dc.citation.title | Contemporary Pragmatism | - |
| dc.citation.volume | 21 | - |
| dc.citation.number | 4 | - |
| dc.citation.startPage | 357 | - |
| dc.citation.endPage | 380 | - |
| dc.type.docType | Article | - |
| dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | ahci | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
| dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Philosophy | - |
| dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Philosophy | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | indirect verification | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | John Dewey | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | parasitic epistemic practice | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | pragmatism | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | pragmatist theory of truth | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | William James | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
30, Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul, 04620, Republic of Korea+82-2-2260-3114
Copyright(c) 2023 DONGGUK UNIVERSITY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.
