Epistemically Self-Defeating Arguments and Skepticism About Intuition

Philosophical Studies (forthcoming)
Abstract An argument is epistemically self-defeating when either the truth of an argument's conclusion or belief in an argument's conclusion defeats one's justification to believe at least one of that argument's premises. Some extant defenses of the evidentiary value of intuition have invoked considerations of epistemic self-defeat in their defense. I argue that there is one kind of argument against intuition, an unreliability argument, which, even if epistemically self-defeating, can still imply that we are not justified in thinking intuition has evidentiary value.
Keywords epistemology  skepticism  intuition  self-defeat  epistemic self-defeat  unreliability
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive
External links
  • Through your library Configure

    Similar books and articles

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2012-02-02

    Total downloads

    250 ( #737 of 549,066 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    162 ( #35 of 549,066 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums