Nancy V. Daukas

Much feminist epistemology has liberatory political objectives; therefore it is activist. Its non‐ideal theorizing reveals how social differences and power affect knowers, knowing, knowledge, and epistemological theorizing to sustain conditions of oppression, and articulates how norms and practices of knowing, in daily life and in the sciences, ought to change to enable social transformations. It articulates and promotes new, more inclusive, expansive, and nuanced epistemic norms and practices that produce knowledge and understanding needed to overcome structures of oppression and to equitably promote well‐being. Such work in feminist epistemology may plausibly be considered applied philosophy.

In this study I aim for an understanding of the problem of Cartesian skepticism. I suggest that the skeptical thesis that knowledge of the world is impossible is one 'side' of a paradox, the other 'side' being that we do know about the world around us. I defend that view by defending the skeptical 'side' of the paradox, assuming that we enter a study of skepticism firmly committed to the non-skeptical 'side'. ;I present an understanding of the skeptical philosopher as occupying a relatively 'objective' or critical point of view from which to reflect on our perceptual and epistemic character and I defend the legitimacy of that point of view against objections raised by F. Dretske , W. V. Quine , D. Davidson, and T. Clarke. I argue that reflections from that 'objective' point of view would remain true to the requirements embodied in those of our normal epistemic practices that determine what it means to assess beliefs and knowledge claims. And I defend the 'objective' character of those reflections against the charge that they presuppose an incorrect conception of the content of beliefs or a particularly philosophical conception of perception that would 'separate' them from ordinary beliefs. To the contrary, I find that those reflections would presuppose the broad conception of our cognitive character that underlies everyday thinking as well. ;I conclude that skepticism would seem to follow from a line of inquiry that frees itself only from the nonskeptical presuppositions that would dictate an uncritical response to the questions driving that inquiry. Thus the skeptical philosopher would seem to adopt precisely the sort of 'objective stance' we ordinarily require of rigorous inquiry. ;My account of skepticism would seem to imply that skepticism is true. Yet skepticism is clearly unacceptable. Thus I leave the problem in the form of a paradox. I suggest that the value of skepticism lies not in the negative thesis it would seem to establish, but rather, in the critical self-scrutiny it instigates.

In this paper I develop and support a feminist virtue epistemology and bring it into conversation with feminist contextual empiricism and feminist standpoint theory. The virtue theory I develop is centered on the virtue of epistemic trustworthiness, which foregrounds the social/political character of knowledge practices and products, and the differences between epistemic agencies that perpetuate, on the one hand, and displace, on the other hand, normative patterns of unjust epistemic discrimination. I argue that my view answers important questions regarding epistemic agency which both contextual empiricism and standpoint theory leave open, but need to have answered. Feminist virtue epistemology thus emerges as providing an integrative framework for pluralism in feminist epistemology that illuminated connections among theories through engagement with the lived experiences, aspirations, and epistemic work of feminist epistemic agents.

Many argue that sceptical enquiry is incoherent insofar as it requires a detachment from and assessment of the framework judgements that constitute our practice of enquiry. This paper accepts that enquiry is relative to a framework, but argues that the Cartesian sceptical enquiry is consistent with that relativity. Part I presents Marie McGinn's Wittgen‐steinian anti‐sceptical argument, comparing its view of enquiry to Carnap's. Part II clarifies the sense in which Wittgenstein's ‘Moore‐type’ framework judgements could be unquestionable, and argues that McGinn's antisceptical argument fails. Part III shows that the sceptical enquiry finds all our beliefs to lack justification by suspending our normal non‐sceptical framework judgement regarding perception in a way that is consistent with the framework‐relativity of enquiry, and encouraged by normal standards. The paper closes by recommending a view of scepticism as a stimulus for enquiry.1.

This paper argues that epistemic contextualism misrepresents ordinary epistemic practices and fails to adequately respond to skepticism. It offers an alternative account of contextual variation in epistemic practices on which epistemic standards are stable, but met differently in different contexts. Contexts are determined by background presuppositions, which vary with types of inquiry. The presuppositions behind some inquiries imply that some standards of knowledge have 'already' been met. This view does not solve the skeptical problem, but aims to elucidate ordinary epistemic attitudes, and to clarify what a response to skepticism must accomplish

Epistemic trustworthiness is defined as a complex character state that supervenes on a relation between first- and second-order beliefs, including beliefs about others as epistemic agents. In contexts shaped by unjust power relations, its second-order components create a mutually supporting link between a deficiency in epistemic character and unjust epistemic exclusion on the basis of group membership. In this way, a deficiency in the virtue of epistemic trustworthiness plays into social/epistemic interactions that perpetuate social injustice. Overcoming that deficiency and, along with it, normalized practices of epistemic exclusion, requires developing a self-critical perspective on the partial, socially-located character of one's perspective and the consequent epistemic value of inclusiveness