David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In section III of Pryor 2006a, I argued against the view that the mere fact that a thought- type is hyper-reliable directly gives one justification to believe a thought of that type. A close alternative says that our merely appreciating that the thought-type is hyper-reliable directly gives us that justification.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Audi (2009). Reliability as a Virtue. Philosophical Studies 142 (1):43 - 54.
Ned Block (1993). Holism, Hyper-Analyticity and Hyper-Compositionality. Mind and Language 8 (1):1-26.
Jonathan Kvanvig (1986). How to Be a Reliabilist. American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (2):189 - 198.
Marshall Swain (1985). Justification, Reasons, and Reliability. Synthese 64 (1):69 - 92.
Owen McLeod (2001). Science, Religion, and Hyper-Humeanism. Philo 4 (1):68-81.
James Pryor (2006). Hyper-Reliability and Apriority. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (3):327–344.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #101,081 of 1,410,148 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,743 of 1,410,148 )
How can I increase my downloads?