David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 142 (3):403 - 426 (2009)
This paper argues that a priori justification is, in principle, compatible with naturalism—if the a priori is understood in a way that is free of the inessential properties that, historically, have been associated with the concept. I argue that empirical indefeasibility is essential to the primary notion of the a priori; however, the indefeasibility requirement should be interpreted in such a way that we can be fallibilist about apriori-justified claims. This fallibilist notion of the a priori accords with the naturalist’s commitment to scientific methodology in that it allows for apriori-justified claims to be sensitive to further conceptual developments and the expansion of evidence. The fallibilist apriorist allows that an a priori claim is revisable in only a purely epistemic sense. This modal claim is weaker than what is required for a revisability thesis to establish empiricism, so fallibilist apriorism represents a distinct position.
|Keywords||a priori defeasibility epistemic possibility naturalism fallibilism epistemology of logic epistemic modals|
|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
J. Adler (2002). Belief's Own Ethics. MIT Press.
Louise Antony (2004). A Naturalized Approach to the a Priori. Philosophical Issues 14 (1):1–17.
Robert Audi (2000). Philosophical Naturalism at the Turn of the Century. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:27-45.
George Bealer (2002). Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press. 71--125.
Paul Boghossian (2003). Blind Reasoning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):225–248.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Houston Smit (2010). Apriority, Reason, and Induction in Hume. Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):313-343.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333-355.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333 - 355.
Peter Achinstein (1995). Are Empirical Evidence Claims a Priori? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):447-473.
Dan McArthur (2005). Normative Naturalism and the Relativised a Priori. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):331 - 350.
Michaelis Michael (2004). The Problems with Double-Indexing Accounts of the a Priori. Philosophical Studies 118 (1-2):67-81.
Gilbert Harman (2003). The Future of the A Priori. Journal of Philosophical Research 28 (Supplement):23-34.
Lisa Warenski (2012). Erratum To: Naturalism, Fallibilism, and the a Priori. Philosophical Studies 159 (2):321-321.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads228 ( #2,119 of 1,102,932 )
Recent downloads (6 months)36 ( #2,585 of 1,102,932 )
How can I increase my downloads?