Has Jonathan Bernier Rescued Critical Realism?

Jonathan Bernier recently responded to Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts’ article on epistemology in jshj. In this rejoinder, Porter and Pitts expose Bernier’s perpetual failure to understand the central terminology in this debate. Their response to Bernier reveals his clear confusion surrounding tech...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs: Porter, Stanley E. 1956- (Auteur) ; Pitts, Andrew W. (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Brill 2016
Dans: Journal for the study of the historical Jesus
Année: 2016, Volume: 14, Numéro: 3, Pages: 241-247
RelBib Classification:HC Nouveau Testament
VB Herméneutique; philosophie
Sujets non-standardisés:B Critical Realism epistemology historical method N.T. Wright
Accès en ligne: Volltext (Verlag)
Édition parallèle:Non-électronique
Description
Résumé:Jonathan Bernier recently responded to Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts’ article on epistemology in jshj. In this rejoinder, Porter and Pitts expose Bernier’s perpetual failure to understand the central terminology in this debate. Their response to Bernier reveals his clear confusion surrounding technical (even if basic) philosophical nomenclature in contemporary epistemology. Consequently, Bernier turns out to be just as committed to internalism as those he attempts to rescue from it. Their biggest disappointment, however, turns upon Bernier’s inability to engage the central argument of their original article. Their case rested entirely upon the crippling Gettier-style counterexamples to internalism and, by extension, critical realism. Yet, Gettier never makes an appearance in Bernier’s article. One can only speculate why Bernier would write an article-length response that neglects to address this argument. Whatever the cause, this oversight deeply undermines Bernier’s entire project by leaving Porter and Pitts’ original argument unscathed and firmly intact.
ISSN:1745-5197
Contient:In: Journal for the study of the historical Jesus
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/17455197-01403002