David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 172 (1):261-282 (2015)
According to Jim Pryor’s dogmatism, when you have an experience with content p, you often have prima facie justification for believing p that doesn’t rest on your independent justification for believing any proposition. Although dogmatism has an intuitive appeal and seems to have an antisceptical bite, it has been targeted by various objections. This paper principally aims to answer the objections by Roger White according to which dogmatism is inconsistent with the Bayesian account of how evidence affects our rational credences. If this were true, the rational acceptability of dogmatism would be seriously questionable. I respond that these objections don’t get off the ground because they assume that our experiences and our introspective beliefs that we have experiences have the same evidential force, whereas the dogmatist is uncommitted to this assumption. I also consider the question whether dogmatism has an antisceptical bite. I suggest that the answer turns on whether or not the Bayesian can determine the priors of hypotheses and conjectures on the grounds of their extra-empirical virtues. If the Bayesian can do so, the thesis that dogmatism has an antisceptical bite is probably false
|Keywords||Dogmatism Bayesianism Perceptual scepticism Perceptual justification Immediate justification Explanationism Jim Pryor Roger White Nico Silins|
|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
Luca Moretti (2014). Global Scepticism, Underdetermination and Metaphysical Possibility. Erkenntnis 79 (2):381-403.
Similar books and articles
Matthew Kotzen (2012). Silins's Liberalism. Philosophical Studies 159 (1):61-68.
Chris Tucker (2010). Why Open-Minded People Should Endorse Dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):529-545.
Roger White (2006). Problems for Dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 131 (3):525--57.
Ram Neta (2004). Perceptual Evidence and the New Dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):199-214.
Crispin Wright (2007). The Perils of Dogmatism. In Nuccetelli & Seay (eds.), Themes from G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology. Oxford University Press
Berit Brogaard (2013). Phenomenal Seemings and Sensible Dogmatism. In Chris Tucker (ed.), Seemings and Justification. OUP Usa 270.
Brian Weatherson (2007). The Bayesian and the Dogmatist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt2):169 - 185.
Peter Kung (2010). On Having No Reason: Dogmatism and Bayesian Confirmation. Synthese 177 (1):1 - 17.
Susanna Siegel (2012). Congnitive Penetrability and Perceptual Justification. Noûs 46 (2):201 - 222.
Chris Tucker (forthcoming). Seemings and Justification: An Introduction. In Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism. Oxford University Press
Paul Silva Jr (2013). How To Be Conservative: A Partial Defense of Epistemic Conservatism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (3):501-514.
Abraham Rudnick (2003). Paranoia and Reinforced Dogmatism: Beyond Critical Rationality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (3):339-350.
Added to index2012-11-21
Total downloads355 ( #1,362 of 1,699,706 )
Recent downloads (6 months)60 ( #4,597 of 1,699,706 )
How can I increase my downloads?