David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (4):311 - 316 (1978)
It is commonly thought that the requirements of inferential justification are such that necessarily the process of inferentially justifying a belief will come to an end. But, If this is so, We should be able to pick out those requirements of justification which necessitate an end to the justification process. Unfortunately, Although there is nearly unanimous agreement as to the need for such an end, It is by no means clear which particular requirements of justification impose this need. I examine and criticize several seemingly plausible ways of showing that regresses of inferential justification are impossible and then propose two requirements of inferential justification which, I argue, Are sufficient to show the impossibility
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Scott F. Aikin (2008). Meta-Epistemology and the Varieties of Epistemic Infinitism. Synthese 163 (2):175 - 185.
David Shatz (1983). Foundationalism, Coherentism, and the Levels Gambit. Synthese 55 (1):97 - 118.
Scott F. Aikin (2005). Who is Afraid of Epistemology's Regress Problem? Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191 - 217.
Alvin I. Goldman (1994). Naturalistic Epistemology and Reliabilism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1):301-320.
Timo Kajamies (2009). A Quintet, a Quartet, a Trio, a Duo? The Epistemic Regress Problem, Evidential Support, and Skepticism. Philosophia 37 (3):525-534.
Similar books and articles
Frederik Herzberg (2014). The Dialectics of Infinitism and Coherentism: Inferential Justification Versus Holism and Coherence. Synthese 191 (4):701-723.
Andrew D. Cling (2004). The Trouble with Infinitism. Synthese 138 (1):101 - 123.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:357-377.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism is Indistinguishable From Externalism – A Reply to Rhoda. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:387-394.
Howard Simmons (1988). Nathan on Evidential Insatiability. Analysis 48 (1):57 - 59.
Jan Willem Wieland (2013). Infinite Regress Arguments. Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.
John Post & Derek Turner (2000). Sic Transitivity. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:67-82.
David J. Alexander (2012). Inferential Internalism and Reflective Defeat. Philosophia 40 (3):497-521.
Anna-Sofia Maurin, Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice? Hommage à Wlodek.
Paul Kabay (2005). An Infinite Temporal Regress is Compatible with the Doctrine of Creatio Originans. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (2):123 - 138.
John Turri (2009). On the Regress Argument for Infinitism. Synthese 166 (1):157 - 163.
Ricki Bliss (2013). Viciousness and the Structure of Reality. Philosophical Studies 166 (2):399-418.
N. M. L. Nathan (1977). What Vitiates an Infinite Regress of Justification? Analysis 37 (3):116 - 126.
Timothy McGrew & Lydia McGrew (2000). Foundationalism, Transitivity and Confirmation. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:47-66.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads30 ( #67,266 of 1,410,046 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #75,795 of 1,410,046 )
How can I increase my downloads?