Graduate studies at Western
Erkenntnis 54 (3):375-397 (2001)
|Abstract||The problem of induction and the problem of Cartesian/brain-in-the-vat skepticism have much in common. Both are instances of a general problem of defeasible justification . I use the term "defeasible justification" to refer to a relation between a piece of evidence.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ram Neta (2004). Perceptual Evidence and the New Dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):199-214.
Timothy R. Colburn (1991). Defeasible Reasoning and Logic Programming. Minds and Machines 1 (4):417-436.
Kevin Mulligan (1999). Justification, Rule-Breaking and the Mind. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (2):123-139.
Albert Casullo (2008). Defeasible a Priori Justification: A Reply to Thurow. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):336–343.
John Pollock (2001). ``Defeasible Reasoning with Variable Degrees of Justification&Quot. Artificial Intelligence 133:233-282.
Mikael Janvid (2008). The Experiential Defeasibility and Overdetermination of A Priori Justification. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:271-278.
Thomas Grundmann (2009). Reliabilism and the Problem of Defeaters. Grazer Philosophische Studien 79 (1):65-76.
Timothy R. Colburn (1995). Heuristics, Justification, and Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 5 (4):467-487.
Joshua Thurow (2006). Experientially Defeasible a Priori Justification. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):596–602.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #18,848 of 738,614 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,196 of 738,614 )
How can I increase my downloads?