Inferring and Explaining

Reviewed by Lauren Ashwell, Associate Profesor, Bates College on 3/12/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book does not pretend to cover all areas of epistemology, but is an opinionated introduction to epistemology through consideration of Inference to the Best Explanation. I think this is comprehensive enough for most introductory courses, or courses where epistemology is a topic for only part of the class, as when one combines Metaphysics and Epistemology, or if one wanted to supplement a classic critical thinking or logic class, or even an introductory philosophy of science class with this text.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The book is arguing for a particular thesis, so one could not really call it "unbiased", but one would not want a completely neutral text in a philosophy classroom. It is up to the professor using the text to help students see that even though it is a text, it should still be critically examined. The author of the text is upfront about the fact that he is not neutral about certain claims, and the exercises at the end of each chapter invite the reader to engage critically with the ideas that are presented.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

I do think that this text needs to be updated with a more inclusive representation of professional philosophers.

Clarity rating: 4

The text is very easy to read; it has a relaxed style that many students will find appealing. There are some points where the author uses jargon that is not explained, but this does not happen all that often.

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent in focus on Inference to the Best Explanation across areas in epistemology.

Modularity rating: 4

It seems to me that at least some of the sections could be left out, or taught in a different order. I don't particularly like introducing external world skepticism early in an epistemology course, as the author does, preferring to start by thinking about sources of evidence; I think that one could skip this chapter and return to it.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The text is easy to read, and well structured.

Interface rating: 5

The text does sometimes chop up weirdly, so that it is unclear when you get to an image how you are to continue reading. But this does not happen often.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not notice grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

My main concern about this text is the lack of women epistemologists. Each chapter begins with a quote from a famous male thinker; there are very few women in the citations, and as far as I could tell, the women that are cited are not professional philosophers. Some of the examples used throughout the text are ones that my students would find problematic (for example: cheating in heterosexual relationships), and some asides would also not go down well (the feature mentioned about his wife is only that she is beautiful). These sorts of issues would, at the very least, make the text seem outdated.

Comments

I like this text's structure and ease of reading for a very introductory class. It is clear and engaging. For many institutions, it would need supplementation by further readings. I would suggest looking for supplementary work that addresses the lack of diversity in authors cited in this text.

Reviewed by Gregory VanWagenen, Faculty, Linn-Benton Community College on 1/11/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I suppose there are a number of things that I’d like to see in an introductory epistemology textbook. A discussion about perception, and a direct contrast between inference and perception, and the importance of sense-data to the concept of knowledge is nowhere to be found. There is also no mention of Bayes’ theorem (it would have found its place in chapter eleven) which surprised and disappointed me.

Obviously, a textbook that was perfectly comprehensive would be too large to be useful, but lacking even a mention of some of the most prevalent ideas in the discipline leaves this work feeling somewhat unfinished.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

My only complaint here is the minimal discussion of Gettier’s 1963 paper (on page 24). The author gives a relevant example, dealing with a bowl of spaghetti, without ever generalizing the underlying problem, which is that many of our favorite propositions turn out to be true for reasons we didn’t originally appreciate. Often our most cherished propositions end up being true by accident. This is a problem in our theory of knowledge, and one which Gettier illustrated masterfully. Glossing over Gettier’s paper might give casual readers an inaccurate or incomplete picture of the importance of justification.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The author invokes the current American president and wants his readers to know that he dislikes some of the things he says (on page 5, among other places). Not only is this irrelevant, but it’s guaranteed to age about as well as Kripke’s regular example of Nixon and Checkers. Rewriting the reference might make the book more accessible to a larger population of Americans, and it will almost certainly eliminate the need to hunt up the backstory by future generations of students.

Clarity rating: 5

The author has done a masterful job presenting complicated ideas in a simple, carnal, unesoteric style which will be readily understood by interested laymen and first year undergraduates. There is a distinct lack of ostentatious philosophical jargon. It’s difficult to praise this aspect of the book highly enough.

Consistency rating: 5

Every section adequately supports the thesis of its chapter, and every chapter serves to illuminate the subject which the text attempts to teach. No chapter appears too lengthy or overdone.

Modularity rating: 5

The subdivision of chapters into sections was well-done, and all sections left every chapter’s thesis well-supported. Moreover, most of the sections may be assigned as standalone reading.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The preface was succinct and meaningful. I appreciated chapter-level endnotes, though this is probably a personal bias.

Interface rating: 5

The PDF copy I acquired contained graphics which were perfectly legible.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I found no errors of spelling or punctuation. Harsher critics would likely point out a number of irregularities which appear throughout the text. The author writes casually. Sentences occasionally run-on. He begins a notable number of his sentences with conjunctions (page 6 is one example). At my own first reading, I found these minor issues annoying. But, after subsequent readings, I’d argue that this is a feature of a textbook which aims at accessibility. Far too many philosophers are slaves of an annoying literary ostenation, and this is as ugly a trait as any which permeates a discipline. What will annoy many professional philosophers is likely a feature of the text, rather than a problem.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This question is not particularly applicable to an epistemology textbook. The text does not feature any content that ordinary people would find offensive or humiliating.

Comments

A stimulating inquiry into interrelated, undertheorized questions in critical thinking and epistemology, which is exceptionally accessible, perfectly suited to laymen and undergraduate students, who are the author’s target audience. I enjoyed my readings, and in the end, Professor Johnson’s work made me a better teacher, and a more proficient writer.