Indirect Verification and Historical Inquiry as a Parasitic Epistemic Practice
In: Contemporary PragmatismSearch for other papers by Jong–pil Yoon in
Current site
Google Scholar
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.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 106 | 106 | 60 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 51 | 51 | 46 |
Indirect Verification and Historical Inquiry as a Parasitic Epistemic Practice
In: Contemporary PragmatismSearch for other papers by Jong–pil Yoon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
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.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 106 | 106 | 60 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 51 | 51 | 46 |