Philosophical Studies 38 (1):53 - 63 (1980)
|Abstract||It is generally conceded that a principle of coherence is needed to give a complete account of justification. Even the most prominent foundationalists of this century have included coherence principles among those epistemic principles which they defend. Against this prevailing view, I suggest that a principle of coherence is not needed in order to give an adequate account of justification. However, Instead of arguing directly for this claim, I defend the only slightly less controversial claim that contrary to what foundationalists such as roderick chisholm think, Foundationalists theories of justification can be developed adequately without recourse to a principle of coherence|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Fumerton (1994). The Incoherence of Coherence Theories. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:89-102.
Martine Nida-Rumelin (1997). Chisholm on Personal Identity and the Attribution of Experiences. In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Keith Lehrer (2005). Coherence and the Truth Connection. Erkenntnis 63 (3):413 - 423.
Jaegwon Kim (1997). Chisholm on Intentionality: De Se, de Re, and de Dicto. In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Ernest Sosa (2003). Chisholm's Epistemic Principles. Metaphilosophy 34 (5):553-562.
Matthew Davidson (2009). On Roderick Chisholm. Philosophy Now 75:32-33.
Keith Lehrer (1988). Coherence, Justification, and Chisholm. Philosophical Perspectives 2:125-138.
Wilfrid S. Sellars (1973). Givenness and Explanatory Coherence. Journal of Philosophy 70 (October):612-624.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,331 of 722,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?