Tag Archives: justification

THE CASE OF PATIENT SMITH: PAIN-BELIEF, EPISTEMIC LUCK, AND ACQUAINTANCE (pages 223-228)

Elliott R. CROZAT ABSTRACT: Can a pain-belief such as “I feel pain” be fallibly justified and luckily true? In this discussion note, I provide a Gettier-type example to show that a belief about one’s own pain can be held on fallible justification and a matter of epistemic luck for its believer. This example underscores the significance of introspection and direct …

Read More »

Radical Knowledge Minimalism (pages 223-227)

Jeremy FANTL, Matthew McGRATH ABSTRACT: We argue that knowledge doesn’t require any of truth, justification, or belief. This is so for four primary reasons. First, each of the three conditions has been subject to convincing counterexamples. In addition, the resultant account explains the value of knowledge, manifests important theoretical virtues (in particular, simplicity), and avoids commitment to skepticism. Download PDF

Read More »

Education and Knowledge (pages 245-263)

Elliott R. CROZAT ABSTRACT: In this paper, I challenge a traditional assumption concerning the nature and aims of education. According to epistemic infallibilism, propositional knowledge requires epistemic certainty. Though some philosophers accept infallibilism, others consider it implausible because it does not recognize ordinary cases of supposed knowledge. On this objection, we possess many items of propositional knowledge, notwithstanding the fallibleness …

Read More »

Why Fallibilistic Evidence is Insufficient for Propositional Knowledge (pages 143-150)

Elliott R. CROZAT ABSTRACT: In this article, I argue that fallibilistic justification is insufficient for propositional knowledge if veritic luck is involved. I provide a thought experiment to demonstrate that even very strong non-factive evidence is insufficient for knowledge if veritic luck is present. I then distinguish between precise justification (PJ), which I suggest is required for knowledge in cases …

Read More »

Alston, Aristotle, and Epistemic Normativity (pages 75-92)

Benjamin W. McCRAW ABSTRACT: Alston (2005) argues that there is no such thing as a single concept of epistemic justification. Instead, there is an irreducible plurality of epistemically valuable features of beliefs: ‘epistemic desiderata.’ I argue that this approach is problematic for meta-epistemological reasons. How, for instance, do we characterize epistemic evaluation and do we do we go about it …

Read More »

CONSISTENCY AND SHIFTS IN GETTIER CASES (pages 331-343)

Andreas STEPHENS ABSTRACT: Two Gettier cases are described in detail and it is shown how they unfold in terms of reflective and reflexive desiderata. It is argued that the Gettier problem does not pose a problem for conceptions of knowledge as long as we are consistent in how we understand justification and knowledge. It is only by reading the cases …

Read More »

THE PROBLEM WITH TRUSTING UNFAMILIAR FACULTIES: ACCESSIBILISM DEFENDED (pages 447-471)

Jonathan EGELAND ABSTRACT: According to accessibilism, there is an accessibility condition on justification. More specifically, accessibilism claims that facts about justification are a priori accessible—where a priori is used in the traditional sense that a condition is a priori just in case it doesn’t depend on any of the sense modalities. The most prominent argument for accessibilism draws on BonJour …

Read More »

THE SUBJECT’S PERSPECTIVE OBJECTION TO EXTERNALISM AND WHY IT FAILS (pages 323-331)

Perry HENDRICKS ABSTRACT: The subject’s perspective objection (SPO) is an objection against externalist theories of justification, warrant, and knowledge. In this article, I show that externalists can accommodate the SPO while remaining externalist. So, even if the SPO is successful, it does not motivate internalism, and the primary motivation for internalism has been lost. After this, I provide an explanation …

Read More »

EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING: THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM (pages 175-182)

Christos KYRIACOU ABSTRACT: Recent literature has paid considerable attention to evolutionary debunking arguments. But the cogency of evolutionary debunking arguments is compromised by a problem for such arguments that has been somewhat overlooked, namely, what we may call ‘the demarcation problem.’ This is the problem of asking in virtue of what regulative metaepistemic norm evolutionary considerations either render a belief …

Read More »

‘PEER DISAGREEMENT’ AND EVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE (pages 379-402)

John BIRO, Fabio LAMPERT ABSTRACT: What the rational thing to do in the face of disagreement by an epistemic peer is has been much discussed recently. Those who think that a peer’s disagreement is itself evidence against one’s belief, as many do, are committed to a special form of epistemic dependence. If such disagreement is really evidence, it seems reasonable to …

Read More »