Adhoccery in Epistemology

Philosophical Papers 32 (1):65-82 (2003)
Abstract Ernest Sosa has argued that the relevant alternatives theory of knowledge has yet to overcome serious difficulties. The most serious difficulty is that of providing criteria for when a rival alternative to a claim is relevant. Without such criteria, the theory is ad hoc. I argue that most other externalist theories of knowledge, including Sosa's own, fall victim to this criticism. At the end of the paper I make a suggestion as to why Sosa's objection might not be as damaging as it at first seems
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/05568640309485113
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Hilary Kornblith (2009). Sosa in Perspective. Philosophical Studies 144 (1):127--136.
Juan Comesaña (2005). Unsafe Knowledge. Synthese 146 (3):395 - 404.
Ernest Sosa (2003). Are There Two Grades of Knowledge? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):113–130.
Otávio Bueno (2009). Sosa on Skepticism. Metaphilosophy 40 (2):195-202.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

25 ( #120,994 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

12 ( #56,985 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.