Movin' on up: higher-level requirements and inferential justification
Philosophical Studies 157 (3):323-340 (2012)
| Abstract | Does inferential justification require the subject to be aware that her premises support her conclusion? Externalists tend to answer “no” and internalists tend to answer “yes”. In fact, internalists often hold the strong higher-level requirement that an argument justifies its conclusion only if the subject justifiably believes that her premises support her conclusion. I argue for a middle ground. Against most externalists, I argue that inferential justification requires that one be aware that her premises support her conclusion. Against many internalists, I argue that this higher-level awareness needn’t be doxastic or justified. I also argue that the required higher-level awareness needn’t be caused in some appropriate way, e.g. by a reliable or properly functioning faculty. I suspect that this weaker higher-level requirement is overlooked because, at first glance, it seems absurd to allow nondoxastic, unjustified, and unreliably-caused higher-level awareness to contribute to inferential justification. One of the central goals of this paper is to explain how such weak awareness can make an essential contribution to inferential justification | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMichael Bergmann (2005). Defeaters and Higher-Level Requirements. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):419–436.
Peter J. Graham (2006). Testimonial Justification: Inferential or Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):84-95.
Harold Kincaid (1988). Supervenience and Explanation. Synthese 77 (November):251-81.
Peter J. Graham (2006). Testimonial Justification: Inferential or Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):84–95.
Chris Tucker (2011). No Justified Higher-Level Belief, No Problem. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:283-290.
Keith Lehrer & Stewart Cohen (1983). Justification, Truth, and Coherence. Synthese 55 (2):191 - 207.
M. Huemer (2002). Fumerton's Principle of Inferential Justification. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:329--340.
Alan R. Rhoda (2008). Fumerton's Principle of Inferential Justification, Skepticism, and the Nature of Inference. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:215-234.
Elijah Chudnoff (forthcoming). The Rational Roles of Intuition. In Anthony Booth & Darrell Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:357-377.
David J. Alexander (2012). Inferential Internalism and Reflective Defeat. Philosophia 40 (3):497-521.
Wim de Muijnck (2003). Wide Physical Realization. Inquiry 46 (1):97 – 111.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism is Indistinguishable From Externalism – A Reply to Rhoda. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:387-394.
Thomas M. Crisp (2010). A Dilemma for Internalism? Synthese 174 (3).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-18Total downloads48 ( #22,402 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,087 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
