It is particularly hard to write a critical response to an argument one overall agrees with. In “Hinge Epistemology: Why Choose?” (2025) Jordi Fairhurst shows his readers that hinge epistemology—a theory that holds that epistemic practices are based on unquestioned presuppositions called hinges—is stuck in a stalemate that prevents advancements. This paralysis, Fairhurst argues, is caused by a couple of assumption: a theoretical one that takes the presuppositions—hinges—to have so...| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
Juha Räikkä’s paper (2025) challenges a widely held assumption in the literature on compromise: that compromises involving principles, judgments, or deep values are inherently more difficult to achieve than compromises involving interests, preferences, commitments, or personal values.[1] Against this “traditional”... Read More ›Source| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
Abstract| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
The Scaffolding of Our Thoughts, Atoosa Afshari| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
The Generalist-Particularist Distinction Does Not Need to be Replaced, it Needs to be Revised: A Response to Boudry and Napolitano, Steve Clarke| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
Critical Replies are engagements with articles recently published in Social Epistemology.| Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective