David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Epistemology 5:199-208 (2000)
As the Pyrrhonians made clear, reasons that adequately justify beliefs can have only three possible structures: foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. Infinitism—the view that adequate reasons for our beliefs are infinite and non-repeating—has never been developed carefully, much less advocated. In this paper, I will argue that only infinitism can satisfy two intuitively plausible constraints on good reasoning: the avoidance of circular reasoning and the avoidance of arbitrariness. Further, I will argue that infinitism requires serious, but salutary, revisions in our evaluation of the power of reasoning. Thus, reasoning can not provide a basis for assenting to a proposition—where to assent to a proposition, p, means to believe that we know that p. A non-dogmatic form of provisional justification will be sketched. Finally, the best objections to infinitism, including those posed by the Pyrrhonians, will be shown (at least provisionally!) to be inadequate
|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 (2005). Who is Afraid of Epistemology's Regress Problem? Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191 - 217.
Ted Poston (2007). Acquaintance and the Problem of the Speckled Hen. Philosophical Studies 132 (2):331 - 346.
Ted Poston (2007). Acquaintance and the Problem of the Speckled Hen. Philosophical Studies 132 (2):331-346.
Scott F. Aikin (2005). Who is Afraid of Epistemology’s Regress Problem? Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191-217.
Similar books and articles
Andrew D. Cling (2004). The Trouble with Infinitism. Synthese 138 (1):101 - 123.
John Turri (2009). On the Regress Argument for Infinitism. Synthese 166 (1):157 - 163.
Jeremy Gwiazda (2011). Infinitism, Completability, and Computability: Reply to Peijnenburg. Mind 119 (476):1123-1124.
Joshua A. Smith & Adam C. Podlaskowski (2013). Infinitism and Agents Like Us: Reply to Turri. Logos and Episteme (1):125-128.
Carl Gillett (2003). Infinitism Redux? A Response to Klein. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):709–717.
John Turri (2013). Infinitism, Finitude and Normativity. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):791-795.
J. Aaron Simmons & Scott F. Aikin (2012). Prospects for A Levinasian Epistemic Infinitism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (3):437-460.
Jeanne Peijnenburg (2007). Infinitism Regained. Mind 116 (463):597 - 602.
Stephen Wright (2013). Does Klein's Infinitism Offer a Response to Agrippa's Trilemma? Synthese 190 (6):1113-1130.
Adam C. Podlaskowski & Joshua A. Smith (2011). Infinitism and Epistemic Normativity. Synthese 178 (3):515-527.
John Turri (2010). Foundationalism for Modest Infinitists. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (2):275-283.
Scott F. Aikin (2008). Meta-Epistemology and the Varieties of Epistemic Infinitism. Synthese 163 (2):175 - 185.
Scott F. Aikin (2009). Prospects for Peircian Epistemic Infinitism. Contemporary Pragmatism 6 (2):71-89.
Added to index2012-03-10
Total downloads177 ( #19,494 of 1,796,218 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #29,573 of 1,796,218 )
How can I increase my downloads?