Spent the afternoon “thinking on paper,” trying to understand Gottlieb‘s 8 epistemic types/orientations. This typology is Gottlieb’s own attempt at making sense of his data. He’s been against the epistemological hierarchy that so many researchers have assumed–i.e., the assumption of maturity and sophistication in the Evaluativist worldview vis-a-vis the Absolutist and Multiplist worldviews–claiming that particular ways of justifying knowledge may not be equally valued in other cultures.Hence, his three categories of Ontology, Decidability, and Falllibility.
Ontology pertains to one’s belief about the nature of knowledge (as simple/complex and certain/uncertain); it classifies one as a Realist (only one correct answer) or a Perspectivist (more than one possible correct answers). Ontology, therefore, is the factor that distinguishes an Absolutist from a Multiplist and an Evaluativist.
Decidability is whether one believes that rational procedures can settle a question, making one either a Rationalist or a Non-Rationalist. Decidability tells us if one even bothers to justify or not. Fallibility tells us if one recognizes the possibility of being wrong. Decidability seems to be related to the justification of knowledge, while Fallibility is related to the source of knowledge, but the relationship isn’t as direct.
Based on these three categories, Gottlieb generates 8 epistemic types or orientations:
Does Gottlieb shed light on epistemological worldviews and their relationships to epistemological beliefs pertaining to the nature, source, and justification of knowledge? It seems that the relationship to the nature of knowledge is pretty self-evident, but with regard to the source and justification of knowledge, there is no one-to-one correspondence.
I actually thought that an Absolutist relies on Authority, Multiplist relies on Opinion, and Evaluativist relies on Evidence—exclusively. Not true. That would be oversimplification. Everyone uses all three ways of justifying knowledge; the difference lies in the priority or weight that one gives to each of them. For example, an EVALUATIVIST ought to be open to all three: Authority, Opinion, and Evidence. Depending on the discipline/domain, the appropriate weight is given to each one.
In Gottlieb’s typology, an Evaluativist will have to be a Rationalist Perspectivist, certainly a MODEST PERSPECTIVIST (Fallibilist + Rationalist) if he is truly open to Evidence, one who recognizes the possibility of being wrong.
But would an Evaluativist also be a CONFIDENT PERSPECTIVIST (Infallibilist + Rationalist)? A Confident Perspectivist believes that a rational procedure may be employed in answering a given question, but does not think it is possible to be wrong. In this sense, therefore, EVIDENCE doesn’t seem to play as important a role as AUTHORITY and OPINION since an openness to evidence ought to make one Fallibilist. It would seem then that a CONFIDENT PERSPECTIVIST is a MULTIPLIST. A Multiplist is a Perspectivist who relies more on one’s own opinion—even if the opinion is partly based on what the experts say.
Easily, Gottlieb’s Non-Rationalist Perspectivist will have to be MULTIPLIST and not EVALUATIVIST. Because a Non-Rationalist Perspectivist does not recognize the role of reason, then there is no way that s/he can be an Evaluativist. Whether s/he is a Tragic Perspectivist (Fallible + Non-Rationalist) or a Confident Perspectivist (Infallible + Non-Rationalist) almost doesn’t matter. It must be noted, however, that the CONFIDENT PERSPECTIVIST would be the stereotypical Multiplist.
Remarkably, there is more than one type of Absolutist, and they can be distinguished from one another according to Gottlieb’s categories of Fallibility and Decidability. It’s already clear that all of them subscribe to the Simple/Certain ontology of Knowledge, but what about in terms of the source of knowledge and its justification?
According to Gottlieb’s Epistemic Types/Orientations, there are four types of Realists or Absolutists:
a) Modest: Fallible and Rationalist
b) Tragic: Fallible and Non-Rationalist
c) Confident: Infallible and Rationalist
d) Dogmatic: Infallible and Non-Rationalist
The stereotypical Absolutist would be the Non-Rationalist Realist. The DOGMATIC REALIST (Infallible + Non-Rationalist) relies on Authority and, even if this isn’t acknowledged, Opinion. The TRAGIC REALIST (Fallible + Non-Rationalist) is the same except that s/he recognizes that Authority and Opinion can be mistaken.
But there is still the Rationalist Realist, who believes that reason can help answer questions. The MODEST REALIST (Fallible + Rationalist) comes closest to the Evaluativist, justifying knowledge claims based on Authority, Opinion, and Reason—the only difference from the Evaluativist being one’s ontology of knowledge. The CONFIDENT REALIST (Infallible + Rationalist), on the other hand, probably gives more weight to Authority and Opinion more than an objective assessment of Evidence.
In summary then, the MODEST PERSPECTIVIST is the epitome of the Evaluativist, believing in Evidence and in the true spirit of reason, the possibility of error.
The stereotypical Absolutist is the DOGMATIC REALIST (Infallibilist + Non-Rationalist), relying on Authority and Opinion more than Evidence because s/he believes that reason doesn’t play an important role in justification and that s/he can’t be wrong!
The stereotypical Multiplist is the DOGMATIC PERSPECTIVIST (Infallibilist + Non-Rationalist), similar to the Dogmatic Realist in relying on Authority and Opinion (not on Evidence).
Insight #1: Not all Absolutists and not all Multiplists are DOGMATIC (Infallibilist + Non-Rationalist). Between them are a whole range of more reasonable Absolutists and Multiplists—e.g., the MODEST REALIST who seems to come closest to the Evaluativist, believing in reason and the possibility of error, but espousing a different view of the nature of knowledge.
Insight #2: One’s ontology of knowledge depends on the domain/discipline—whether it is art, morality, social sciences, physical sciences, or even religion. In previous discussions, to think of a person sophisticated in the area of religion as an Evaluativist raised a lot of questions—and eyebrows—because is there really more than one supernatural reality? Perhaps the better category is Gottlieb’s Modest Realist.
If only for that, Gottlieb does shed some light.
