Graduate studies at Western
Philosophia 38 (2):399-404 (2010)
|Abstract||In his “A new argument for evidentialism” (Shah, Philos Q 56(225): 481–498, 2006 ), Nishi Shah argues that the best explanation of a feature of deliberation whether to believe that p which he calls transparency entails that only evidence can be reason to believe that p. I show that his argument fails because a crucial lemma that his argument appeals to cannot be supported without assuming evidentialism to be true in the first place.|
|Keywords||Epistemology Evidentialism Doxastic deliberation Constitutivism Norm of belief|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Allen Wood (2008). The Duty to Believe According to the Evidence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63 (1/3):7 - 24.
Todd Long (2012). Mentalist Evidentialism Vindicated (and a Super-Blooper Epistemic Design Problem for Proper Function Justification). Philosophical Studies 157 (2):251-266.
Scott F. Aikin (2006). Modest Evidentialism. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (3):327-343.
Anthony Robert Booth (2007). The Two Faces of Evidentialism. Erkenntnis 67 (3):401 - 417.
Ted Poston (2007). Foundational Evidentialism and the Problem of Scatter. Abstracta 3 (2):89-106.
Nathan Segars (2006). The Will and Evidence Toward Belief: A Critical Essay on Jonathan E. Adler's Belief's Own Ethics. Social Epistemology 20 (1):79 – 91.
Nishi Shah (2006). A New Argument for Evidentialism. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):481–498.
Scott F. Aikin (2008). Evidentialism and James' Argument From Friendship. Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1):173-180.
Anthony Robert Booth (2008). A New Argument for Pragmatism? Philosophia 36 (2):227-231.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2008). Does Doxastic Transparency Support Evidentialism? Dialectica 62 (4):541-547.
Added to index2009-12-21
Total downloads62 ( #18,378 of 740,542 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,542 )
How can I increase my downloads?