Synthese 85 (2):199 - 230 (1990)
|Abstract||The main thesis of this paper is that it is not possible to determine the nature of epistemic justification apart from scientific psychological investigation. I call this view the strong thesis of methodological psychologism. Two sub-theses provide the primary support for this claim. The first sub-thesis is that no account of epistemic justification is correct which requires for the possession of at least one justified belief a psychological capacity which humans do not have. That is, the correct account of epistemic justification must be psychologically realistic. The second sub-thesis is that it is not possible to determine whether an account of epistemic justification is psychologically realistic apart from scientific psychological investigation. After defending these subtheses, I point out some interesting consequences of the overall thesis which present a challenge to traditional epistemology.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hamid Vahid (2005). Epistemic Justification and the Skeptical Challenge. Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthias Adam (2007). Two Notions of Scientific Justification. Synthese 158 (1):93 - 108.
John Turri (2010). On the Relationship Between Propositional and Doxastic Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):312-326.
William Alston (1989). Epistemic Justification. Cornell University Press.
Colin Ruloff (2009). Epistemic Supervenience and Internalism: A Trilemma. Theoria 75 (2):129-151.
B. J. C. Madison (2010). Is Justification Knowledge? Journal of Philosophical Research 35:173-191.
Eugene Mills (1998). The Unity of Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1):27-50.
Jane Duran (1988). Causal Reference and Epistemic Justification. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):272-279.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,367 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?