David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 55 (1):97 - 118 (1983)
A central problem in epistemology concerns the justification of beliefs about epistemic principles, i.e., principles stating which kinds of beliefs are justified and which not. It is generally regarded as circular to justify such beliefs empirically. However, some recent defenders of foundationalism have argued that, within a foundationalist framework, one can justify beliefs about epistemic principles empirically without incurring the charge of vicious circularity. The key to this position is a sharp distinction between first- and second-level justifiedness.In this paper I first argue that such versions of foundationalism end up giving their approval to circular chains and are therefore unmotivated; if circular chains are acceptable, the classic regress argument for foundationalism does not go through. I then consider and reject two other ways in which the foundationalist might motivate his position. At the end of the paper I draw from this discussion a moral concerning the airns of epistemological theorizing.
|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
Wilfrid Sellars (1963). Science, Perception, and Reality. New York, Humanities Press.
Alvin Goldman (1979). ``What is Justified Belief?". In George Pappas (ed.), Justification and Knowledge. Boston: D. Reidel 1-25.
Laurence Bonjour (1980). Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5 (1):53-73.
Laurence BonJour (1978). Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation? American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (1):1-14.
Wilfrid Sellars & Hector-Neri Castañeda (eds.) (1975). Action, Knowledge, and Reality. Indianapolis,Bobbs-Merrill.
Citations of this work BETA
James van Cleve (2011). Can Coherence Generate Warrant Ex Nihilo? Probability and the Logic of Concurring Witnesses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):337-380.
Michael Levin (1993). Reliabilism and Induction. Synthese 97 (3):297 - 334.
Similar books and articles
Thomas D. Senor (1993). Internalistic Foundationalism and the Justification of Memory Belief. Synthese 94 (3):453 - 476.
David Shatz (1986). Circularity and Epistemic Principles: A Reply to James Keller. Synthese 68 (2):369-382.
Jose L. Zalabardo (2008). Internalist Foundationalism and the Problem of the Epistemic Regress. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):34 - 58.
T. Shogenji (2001). The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (1):90 – 106.
Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1984). What is Wrong with Minimal Foundationalism? Erkenntnis 21 (2):175-184.
Yves Bouchard (2007). The Foundationalism–Coherentism Opposition Revisited: The Case for Complementarism. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 12 (4):325-336.
Jordan Curnutt (1998). Huang on Wittgenstein on Religious Epistemology. Religious Studies 34 (1):81-89.
Thomas Grundmann (1999). BonJour's Self-Defeating Argument for Coherentism. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):463-479.
Robert Audi (1983). Foundationalism, Epistemic Dependence, and Defeasibility. Synthese 55 (1):119 - 139.
James A. Keller (1986). Foundationalism, Circular Justification, and the Levels Gambit. Synthese 68 (2):205 - 212.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads100 ( #43,406 of 1,938,443 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #34,168 of 1,938,443 )
How can I increase my downloads?