Michael Dudley: Validating the Oxfordian Thesis Using Theories of Knowledge, Justification &Truth

By the Rule of That Philosophy: Validating the Oxfordian Thesis Using Theories of Knowledge, Justification and Truth
In his 2021 history of the Oxfordian movement, Shakespeare Revolutionized, James Warren presents what he refers to as the twelve “mental revolutions” downstream of J. Thomas Looney’s 1920 book Shakespeare Identified that the public was required to undergo in order to accept the Oxfordian thesis and surrender the Stratfordian one. These included fundamental transformations of our understandings of the circumstances of the composition of the plays and poems, the significance of their internal contents, and the origins of Shakespeare’s vast knowledge.
In this presentation, based on Michael Dudley's book, 'Epistemology and the Shakespeare Authorship Question', he proposes adding a thirteenth “mental revolution” to those articulated by Warren: that Oxfordians now need to forward a meta-understanding -- an understanding of our understanding of the authorship question itself, including the epistemological bases and justifications of competing knowledge claims. In this presentation, philosophical theories of knowledge, justification, truth and historiography are applied to both the Stratfordian and Oxfordian authorship models to demonstrate the extent to which these models are capable of meeting external and disinterested philosophical criteria.
The relevant theories encompass: belief-formation processes; the nature and role of evidence in knowledge; reliable knowledge-acquisition practices; the grounds on which our beliefs are justified (as well as how these justifications are structured); the philosophical nature of truth; and the roles of explanation and understanding in history. The goal of this investigation is to develop an evaluative (and even-handed) framework for assessing the respective explanatory potentials of these competing authorship models, thereby transcending conventional internal arguments over competing evidence. Dudley argues that the Stratfordian conception of the author (and the knowledge practices and rhetoric exercised in its defence) cannot be accommodated by any of these theories, while the Oxfordian claim (and the corresponding suite of practices employed by Oxfordians) are, by contrast, robustly validated and legitimated.
Bio: Michael Dudley is an academic librarian at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada, where he has collection and instruction responsibilities in history, theatre and film. He is the author of numerous articles on the authorship question that have been published in Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian, as well as in mainstream publications such as the 2020 book Teaching and Learning Practices for Academic Freedom. Most recently, he co-authored (along with Bill Boyle and Catherine Hatinguais) a paper on library subject headings concerning the SAQ that was published in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, a leading library science journal. Many of his talks may be found on the SOF’s KZbin channel. His latest book, 'Epistemology and the Shakespeare Authorship Question: Theoretical Perspectives and Approaches' was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Learn more:
shakespeareoxf...
Stratfordian Epistemology and the Ethics of Belief by Michael Dudley: shakespeareoxf...

[@UtubeAW]

All that debate competition & all those philosophy classes were not wasted as it gives a clear view of the beauty of your argument.

[@edgarsnake2857]

I've heard serious scholars on both sides of the fence. I'm leaning to the Oxfordians. Thanks for the analysis.

[@pbredder]

This clears the air by presenting a set of criteria for evaluating the two opposing claims -- Stratfordian vs Oxfordian -- of the authorship of the works of Shakespeare.

[@jimsteele9559]

Is it my imagination or did this talk just demonstrate Hegelian dialectic leads to falsehood? 4:10. I agree it does. Second false reality. Sorcerer indeed. Oxford is Shakespeare, but with more collaborators than we know.

[@0MVR_0]

bit of a disappointment for a thesis to contain a theory of knowledge due only to the implications the truth would have to a national myth.

[@peckerwood6078]

A wonderful disortation outlining the contentious issue of what "they" believe as opposed to "What we know". This strikes to the very essence of the philosophy espoused by deVere within his association of The Euphues. Bending the language into the form in which it might allow the opposition to entertain the idea and not just dismiss it out of hand. I'm not hearing the "Codification of Evidence" which would be necessary to achieve that goal. Although by shear volume and diversity it is beginning to acquire that station by dent of its own gravitas. Should the galaxies of Stratford & Oxford ever collide would the anticipated cataclysm occur or would it be much ado about nothing if one were to capture the other within its own irresistible thrall. Is not the Moon thought to have been captured by the Earth thereby gifting the stabilized orbit we living it enjoy? Much like children on a school yard we collectively have risen little above the taunts and shouts of "Sez who?" "Yeah! Sez you!" The missing link in my. estimation is the application of a rating system to, make aspects of or bodies of evidence being assessed a standardized value. ie. AI, AII, AIII, BI BII, Biii, BIII, CI-III, DI-III. (Primary sources A-B, Fact based Logical assertions C-D, Allusionary,Anecdotal E-Fiii) Peer review would pertain to such a process and review of same by contrarian bodies would thereafter lead to the common ground which is so wanting. Those postulates thus found wanting thereafter flung off into oblivion while those thus codified welcomed into the panegyric fold. To say that his contemporaries "Knew" is not as powerful as the statement that 97.9% of his known contemporaries agreed that he was the author. 0.1% disbelieved and 3.0% were of no opinion on the matter. What is the n of this sample? What data Universe does this encompass?Scientific Data is either powered or it is not. Then to have the opposition to engage in such a system of classification of evidence would be the Mt Everest to which the supposition applies; "if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain," coined in a story by Francis Bacon.

[@Sunfried1]

You should have started by explaining the basics of the controversy for the uninitiated instead of launching into a jargon-filled lecture, if only as a corrective to ivory-tower syndrome.