David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 85 (2):199 - 230 (1990)
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)|
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
Alvin I. Goldman (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Harvard University Press.
W. V. Quine (1960). Word and Object. The MIT Press.
Nelson Goodman (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
John Rawls (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Alvin I. Goldman (1994). Naturalistic Epistemology and Reliabilism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1):301-320.
James E. Taylor (1993). Scepticism and the Nature of Knowledge. Philosophia 22 (1-2):3-27.
Paul A. Roth (1999). Naturalizing Goldman. Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):89-111.
James E. Taylor (1999). The Value of Epistemology: A Defense. Philosophical Papers 28 (3):169-185.
Similar books and articles
Hamid Vahid (2005). Epistemic Justification and the Skeptical Challenge. Palgrave Macmillan.
Eugene Mills (1998). The Unity of Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1):27-50.
B. J. C. Madison (2010). Is Justification Knowledge? Journal of Philosophical Research 35:173-191.
Colin Ruloff (2009). Epistemic Supervenience and Internalism: A Trilemma. Theoria 75 (2):129-151.
William Alston (1989). Epistemic Justification. Cornell University Press.
John Turri (2010). On the Relationship Between Propositional and Doxastic Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):312-326.
Matthias Adam (2007). Two Notions of Scientific Justification. Synthese 158 (1):93 - 108.
Jane Duran (1988). Causal Reference and Epistemic Justification. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):272-279.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #165,650 of 1,911,521 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #179,609 of 1,911,521 )
How can I increase my downloads?