scholarly journals Analiza empirycznych argumentów na rzecz tezy o zróżnicowaniu kulturowym intuicji epistemicznych

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-102
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Sękowski
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Thought Experiments ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Philosophical Methodology ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Folk Epistemology

An analysis of empirical arguments for the thesis on cultural diversity of epistemic intuitionsThe founding text for the new current in modern philosophy—experimental philosophy—can be seen in Jonathan Weinberg, Shaun Nichols and Stephen Stich’s “Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions” 2001. The authors describe in this article a study to prove cross-cultural differences in epistemic intuitions. On the basis of their results, they argue that since epistemic intuitions seem to serve a crucial role in the use of thought experiments, contemporary philosophical methodology is highly unjustified.That study has brought about at least three replication attempts Seyedsayamdost 2015; Kim, Yuan 2015; Nagel, San Juan, Mar 2013. None of them confirmed the original results.The aim of this article is to critically analyze in detail Weinberg, Nichols and Stich’s methodology and the three replications mentioned. Regarding the results of my analysis, I will try to examine what conclusions can be drawn with regard to the outcomes of analized studies. In particular I will refer to far-reaching conclusions about the universality of epistemic intuitions or universality of folk epistemology, which are sometimes—hastily, as I will argue—extrapolated from the results of such kind of studies e.g., Kim, Yuan 2015; Kim Yuan 2016.

scholarly journals Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences in Semantic Intuitions: New Experimental Findings

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 322-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Beebe ◽  
Ryan Undercoffer
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Anchoring Effects ◽  
Semantic Reference ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
Epistemic Perspective

In 2004 Edouard Machery, Ron Mallon, Shaun Nichols and Stephen Stich published what has become one of the most widely discussed papers in experimental philosophy, in which they reported that East Asian and Western participants had different intuitions about the semantic reference of proper names. A flurry of criticisms of their work has emerged, and although various replications have been performed, many critics remain unconvinced. We review the current debate over Machery et al.’s (2004) results and take note of which objections to their work have been satisfactorily answered and which ones still need to be addressed. We then report the results of studies that reveal significant cross-cultural and intra-cultural differences in semantic intuitions when we control for variables that critics allege have had a potentially distorting effect on Machery et al.’s findings. These variables include the epistemic perspective from which participants are supposed to understand the research materials, unintended anchoring effects of those materials, and pragmatic factors involved in the interpretation of speech acts within them. Our results confirm the robustness of the cross-cultural differences observed by Machery et al. and thereby strengthen the philosophical challenge they pose.

scholarly journals Western Skeptic vs Indian Realist. Cross-Cultural Differences in Zebra Case Intuitions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Sękowski ◽  
Adrian Ziółkowski ◽  
Maciej Tarnowski
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Sense Perception ◽  
Gettier Case ◽  
Philosophical Inquiry ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Knowledge Ascriptions ◽  
Larger Sample

AbstractThe cross-cultural differences in epistemic intuitions reported by Weinberg, Nichols and Stich (2001; hereafter: WNS) laid the ground for the negative program of experimental philosophy. However, most of WNS’s findings were not corroborated in further studies. The exception here is the study concerning purported differences between Westerners and Indians in knowledge ascriptions concerning the Zebra Case, which was never properly replicated. Our study replicates the above-mentioned experiment on a considerably larger sample of Westerners (n = 211) and Indians (n = 204). The analysis found a significant difference between the ethnic groups in question in the predicted direction: Indians were more likely to attribute knowledge in the Zebra Case than Westerners. In this paper, we offer an explanation of our result that takes into account the fact that replications of WNS’s other experiments did not find any cross-cultural differences. We argue that the Zebra Case is unique among the vignettes tested by WNS since it should not be regarded as a Gettier case but rather as a scenario exhibiting skeptical pressure concerning the reliability of sense-perception. We argue that skepticism towards perception as a means of gaining knowledge is a trope that is deeply rooted in Western epistemology but is very much absent from Classical Indian philosophical inquiry. This line of reasoning is based on a thorough examination of the skeptical scenarios discussed by philosophers of the Indian Nyaya tradition and their adversaries.

Interaction despite of diversity: is it possible?

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 743-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Caiazza ◽  
Tiziana Volpe
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cultural Distance ◽  
Small And Medium Enterprises ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Dimensions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Egyptian Culture ◽  
The Impact

Purpose – Italy is traditionally one of Egypt’s main trading partners, ranking first both as import and export partner. However, Italian firms face several cultural problems in Egypt. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of cross-cultural differences faced by Italian firms’ operating in Egypt. The investigation of cross-cultural differences is facilitated by the examination of interaction between Italian and Egyptian culture using Hofstede and GLOBE’s cultural attributes and dimensions. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative analysis has been conducted through face to face interviews of individuals working for Italian firms operating in Egypt. These interviews were structured to specifically identify the impact of cultural differences on the interaction between Italian and Egyptian firms. Findings – The results show that Italy is one of the most important commercial partners of Egypt. However, cultural diversity results in Italian small and medium enterprises facing risks when operating in Egypt. Cultural distance is a problem for Italian firms investing in Egypt. Thus, interaction between Italian and Egyptian firms requires a common understanding of cultural diversity. Italian firms must develop an understanding of Egyptian culture if they are to avoid cultural clash. Egyptian policy-makers must adopt policies that open national culture to international interactions. Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on a sub-set of the cultural attributes identified in Hofstede and GLOBE’s study. The results presented in this paper may be complimented through a future quantitative analysis, evaluating the relationship between religious values and other cultural dimensions. Originality/value – This paper provides an insight into the interaction between Italian and Egyptian culture. It contributes to the extant literature by filling a gap in the existing literature on cross-cultural diversity and interaction between Europe and Middle East.

scholarly journals Cultural Diversity in the Meaning of Lies, Deceptions, and other Misrepresentations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Hruschka
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Key Questions

Across cultures, people vary dramatically in how they view lies. This includes variation in the criteria they use to define lies and evaluate what kinds lies are good and bad. In this paper, I outline current studies illustrating these cross-cultural differences and point to key questions raised by these studies.

Cognitive gadgets: A provocative but flawed manifesto

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Del Giudice
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Mind ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Twin Studies ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Evolutionary Approach ◽  
Genetic Inheritance ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
Dichotomous Thinking

Abstract The argument against innatism at the heart of Cognitive Gadgets is provocative but premature, and is vitiated by dichotomous thinking, interpretive double standards, and evidence cherry-picking. I illustrate my criticism by addressing the heritability of imitation and mindreading, the relevance of twin studies, and the meaning of cross-cultural differences in theory of mind development. Reaching an integrative understanding of genetic inheritance, plasticity, and learning is a formidable task that demands a more nuanced evolutionary approach.

Cross-Cultural Differences in the Temporal Distribution of Autobiographical Memory

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve M. J. Janssen ◽  
Anna Gralak ◽  
Yayoi Kawasaki ◽  
Gert Kristo ◽  
Pedro M. Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autobiographical Memory ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Temporal Distribution ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences

Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of individual and institutional sexism

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Sim ◽  
Zoe Kinias ◽  
Krishna Savani ◽  
Heejung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences

¡Pura vida! Cross-cultural differences in happiness and satisfaction with life

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Anderson ◽  
Michael K. Lunn ◽  
Ronald W. Wright ◽  
Alicia Limke
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Satisfaction With Life ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document