Mentalist evidentialism vindicated (and a super-blooper epistemic design problem for proper function justification)
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 157 (2):251-266 (2012)
Michael Bergmann seeks to motivate his externalist, proper function theory of epistemic justification by providing three objections to the mentalism and mentalist evidentialism characteristic of nonexternalists such as Richard Feldman and Earl Conee. Bergmann argues that (i) mentalism is committed to the false thesis that justification depends on mental states; (ii) mentalism is committed to the false thesis that the epistemic fittingness of an epistemic input to a belief-forming process must be due to an essential feature of that input, and, relatedly, that mentalist evidentialism is committed to the false thesis that the epistemic fittingness of doxastic response B to evidence E is an essential property of B–E; and (iii) mentalist evidentialism is “unmotivated”. I object to each argument. The argument for (i) begs the question. The argument for (ii) suffers from the fact that mentalist evidentialists are not committed to the consequences claimed for them; nevertheless, I show that there is, in the neighborhood, a substantive dispute concerning the nature of doxastic epistemic fittingness. That dispute involves what I call “Necessary Fittingness”, the view that, necessarily, exactly one (at most) doxastic attitude ( belief , or disbelief , or suspension of judgment ) toward a proposition is epistemically fitting with respect to a person’s total evidence at any time. Reflection on my super-blooper epistemic design counterexamples to Bergmann’s proper function theory reveals both the plausibility of Necessary Fittingness and a good reason to deny (iii). Mentalist evidentialism is thus vindicated against the objections
|Keywords||Mentalism Evidentialism Epistemic fittingness Proper function justification Bergmann Feldman Conee|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel M. Johnson (2011). Proper Function and Defeating Experiences. Synthese 182 (3):433-447.
Earl Brink Conee (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
Jason Baehr (2009). Evidentialism, Vice, and Virtue. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3):545-567.
John Zeis (2010). Evidentialism Versus Faith. Social Epistemology 24 (1):1 – 13.
T. Dougherty (ed.) (2011). Evidentialism and its Discontents. Oxford University Press.
Declan Smithies (forthcoming). The Phenomenal Basis of Epistemic Justification. In Jesper Kallestrup & Mark Sprevak (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Mind. Palgrave MacMillan.
Michael J. Shaffer (2013). Doxastic Voluntarism, Epistemic Deontology and Belief-Contravening Commitments. American Philosophical Quarterly 50 (1):73-82.
Anthony Robert Booth (2007). The Two Faces of Evidentialism. Erkenntnis 67 (3):401 - 417.
Guy Axtell (2012). (More) Springs of My Discontent. Logos and Episteme (1):131-137.
John Zeis (2006). Evidentialism and Faith. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80:185-200.
Andrew Reisner (2007). Evidentialism and the Numbers Game. Theoria 73 (4):304-316.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2013). Truth as the Aim of Epistemic Justification. In Timothy Chan (ed.), The Aim of Belief. Oxford University Press.
Thomas M. Crisp (2010). A Dilemma for Internalism? Synthese 174 (3):355 - 366.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads23 ( #62,178 of 1,010,225 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,010,225 )
How can I increase my downloads?