Search results for 'non-inferential justification' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Chris Tucker (forthcoming). Acquaintance and Fallible Non-Inferential Justification. In Michael Bergmann & Brett Coppenger (eds.), Traditional Epistemic Internalism. Oxford University Press.score: 180.0
    Classical acquaintance theory is any version of classical foundationalism that appeals to acquaintance in order to account for non-inferential justification. Such theories are well suited to account for a kind of infallible non-inferential justification. Why am I justified in believing that I’m in pain? An initially attractive (partial) answer is that I’m acquainted with my pain. But since I can’t be acquainted with what isn’t there, acquaintance with my pain guarantees that I’m in pain. What’s less (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Peter J. Graham (2006). Testimonial Justification: Inferential or Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):84-95.score: 117.0
    Anti-Reductionists hold that beliefs based upon comprehending (both force and content) of tellings are non-inferentially justified. Comprehension as such, like perceptual representation, confers non-inferential justification on belief. Reductionists, on the other hand, reject this. Comprehension as such is not in itself a warrant for belief. Beliefs based on comprehension are justified only if inferentially supported by other things the subject believes. I discuss an argument from Elizabeth Fricker from her ‘Trusting Others in the Sciences: A Priori or Empirical (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James Pryor, Is There Non-Inferential Justification?score: 107.7
    I want to talk about a certain epistemic quality that I call “justification,” and inquire whether that quality can ever be had “immediately” or “non-inferentially.” Before we get into substantive issues, we need first to agree about what epistemic quality it is we’ll be talking about, and then we need to clarify what it is to have that quality immediately or non-inferentially. When I say I call this epistemic quality “justification,” you’re liable to think, “Oh I know what (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Thor Grünbaum (2011). Perception and Non-Inferential Knowledge of Action. Philosophical Explorations 14 (2):153 - 167.score: 105.0
    I present an account of how agents can know what they are doing when they intentionally execute object-oriented actions. When an agent executes an object-oriented intentional action, she uses perception in such a way that it can fulfil a justificatory role for her knowledge of her own action and it can fulfil this justificatory role without being inferentially linked to the cognitive states that it justifies. I argue for this proposal by meeting two challenges: in an agent's knowledge of her (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Jessica Brown (2004). Non-Inferential Justification and Epistemic Circularity. Analysis 64 (4):339–348.score: 93.0
    Bergmann argues that we should accept epistemically circular reasoning since, he claims, it is a consequence of the plausible assumption that some justification is noninferential (Bergmann, M. "Epistemic Circularity, Malignant and Benign", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research forthcoming). I show that epistemically circular reasoning does not follow merely from the assumption that some justification is noninferential, but only from that view combined with the assumption of basic justification or knowledge. Thus, we have reason to endorse epistemically circular reasoning (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. J. Pryor (2005). A Defense of Immediate Non-Inferential Justification. In Steup Matthias & Sosa Ernest (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Blackwell.score: 90.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Carl Ginet (2010). Self-Evidence. Logos and Episteme 54 (2):325-352.score: 89.0
    ABSTRACT: This paper develops an account of what it is for a proposition to be self- evident to someone, based on the idea that certain propositions are such that to fully understand them is to believe them. It argues that when a proposition p is self-evident to one, one has non-inferential a priori justification for believing that p and, a welcome feature, a justification that does not involve exercising any special sort of intuitive faculty; if, in addition, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Andrea Guardo (forthcoming). Semantic Dispositionalism and Non-Inferential Knowledge. Philosophia:1-11.score: 84.0
    The paper discusses Saul Kripke’s Normativity Argument against semantic dispositionalism: it criticizes the orthodox interpretation of the argument, defends an alternative reading and argues that, contrary to what Kripke himself seems to have been thinking, the real point of the Normativity Argument is not that meaning is normative. According to the orthodox interpretation, the argument can be summarized as follows: (1) it is constitutive of the concept of meaning that its instances imply an ought, but (2) it is not constitutive (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Chris Tucker (2012). Movin' on Up: Higher-Level Requirements and Inferential Justification. Philosophical Studies 157 (3):323-340.score: 84.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Frederik Herzberg (2014). The Dialectics of Infinitism and Coherentism: Inferential Justification Versus Holism and Coherence. Synthese 191 (4):701-723.score: 84.0
    This paper formally explores the common ground between mild versions of epistemological coherentism and infinitism; it proposes—and argues for—a hybrid, coherentist–infinitist account of epistemic justification. First, the epistemological regress argument and its relation to the classical taxonomy regarding epistemic justification—of foundationalism, infinitism and coherentism—is reviewed. We then recall recent results proving that an influential argument against infinite regresses of justification, which alleges their incoherence on account of probabilistic inconsistency, cannot be maintained. Furthermore, we prove that the Principle (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Chris Tucker (2009). Perceptual Justification and Warrant by Default. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87: 445-63 87 (3):445-63.score: 72.0
    As I use the term, ‘entitlement’ is any warrant one has by default—i.e. without acquiring it. Some philosophers not only affirm the existence of entitlement, but also give it a crucial role in the justification of our perceptual beliefs. These philosophers affirm the Entitlement Thesis: An essential part of what makes our perceptual beliefs justified is our entitlement to the proposition that I am not a brain-in-a-vat. Crispin Wright, Stewart Cohen, and Roger White are among those who endorse this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Paul K. Moser (1989). Inferential Justification and Foley's Foundations. Analysis 49 (2):84 - 88.score: 69.0
    In "the theory of epistemic rationality" (harvard university press, 1987), Richard foley presents a version of subjective foundationalism designed to avoid aristotle's famous regress problem. This paper explains why foley's theory does not provide an adequate account of the foundations of inferential epistemic justification. Foley's theory neglects the epistemic significance of 'non'belief perceptual states.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Fabian Dorsch (2013). Non‐Inferentialism About Justification – The Case of Aesthetic Judgements. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (253):660-682.score: 66.0
    In this article, I present two objections against the view that aesthetic judgements – that is, judgemental ascriptions of aesthetic qualities like elegance or harmony – are justified non-inferentially. The first is that this view cannot make sense of our practice to support our aesthetic judgements by reference to lower-level features of the objects concerned. The second objection maintains that non-inferentialism about the justification of aesthetic judgements cannot explain why our aesthetic interest in artworks and other objects is limited (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Chris Tucker (forthcoming). Why Sceptical Theism Isn’T Sceptical Enough. In Trent Doughtery & Justin McBrayder (eds.), Skeptical Theism: New Essays. Oxford University Press.score: 63.0
    The most common charge against sceptical theism is that it is too sceptical, i.e. it committed to some undesirable form of scepticism or another. I contend that Michael Bergmann’s sceptical theism isn’t sceptical enough. I argue that, if true, the sceptical theses secure a genuine victory: they prevent, for some people, a prominent argument from evil from providing any justification whatsoever to doubt the existence of God. On the other hand, even if true, the sceptical theses fail to prevent (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Ted Poston (2010). Similarity and Acquaintance: A Dilemma. Philosophical Studies 147 (3):369 - 378.score: 63.0
    There is an interesting and instructive problem with Richard Fumerton's acquaintance theory of noninferential justification. Fumerton's explicit account requires acquaintance with the truth-maker of one's belief and yet he admits that one can have noninferential justification when one is not acquainted with the truthmaker of one's belief but instead acquainted with a very similar truth-maker. On the face of it this problem calls for clarification. However, there are skeptical issues lurking in the background. This paper explores these issues (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Yusef Waghid (2003). Peters' Non-Instrumental Justification of Education View Revisited: Contesting the Philosophy of Outcomes-Based Education in South Africa. Studies in Philosophy and Education 22 (3/4):245-265.score: 60.0
    In this article I argue that Outcomes-basedEducation is conceptually trapped in aninstrumentally justifiable view of education. Icontend that the notion of Outcomes-basedEducation is incommensurable with anon-instrumental justification of educationview as explained by RS Peters (1998). Theprocess of specifying outcomes in educationaldiscourse lends itself to manipulation andcontrol and thereby makes the idea ofOutcomes-based Education educationallyimpoverished. In this article an argument ismade for education through rational reflectionand imagination which can complement anOutcomes-based Education system for the reasonthat it finds expression in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Elizabeth Tropman (2011). Non-Inferential Moral Knowledge. Acta Analytica 26 (4):355-366.score: 56.0
    In a series of recent papers, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has developed a novel argument against moral intuitionism. I suggest a defense on behalf of the intuitionist against Sinnott-Armstrong’s objections. Rather than focus on the main premises of his argument, I instead examine the way in which Sinnott-Armstrong construes the intuitionistic position. I claim that Sinnott-Armstrong’s understanding of intuitionism is mistaken. In particular, I argue that Sinnott-Armstrong mischaracterizes non-inferentiality as it figures in intuitionism. To the extent that Sinnott-Armstrong’s account of intuitionism has (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Alexander Bird (2004). Is Evidence Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly 54 (215):252–265.score: 56.0
    Evidence is often taken to be foundational, in that while other propositions may be inferred from our evidence, evidence propositions are themselves not inferred from anything. I argue that this conception is false, since the non-inferential propositions on which beliefs are ultimately founded may be forgotten or undermined in the course of enquiry.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. M. Huemer (2002). Fumerton's Principle of Inferential Justification. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:329--340.score: 56.0
    Richard Fumerton’s “Principle of Inferential Justification” holds that, in order to be justified in believing P on the basis of E, one must be justified in believing that E makes P probable. I argue that the plausibility of this principle rests upon two kinds of mistakes: first, a level confusion; and second, a fallacy of misconditionalisation. Furthermore, Fumerton’s principle leads to skepticism about inferential justification, for which reason it should be rejected. Instead, the examples Fumerton uses to motivate (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Bart Streumer (2007). Inferential and Non-Inferential Reasoning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):1-29.score: 56.0
    It is sometimes suggested that there are two kinds of reasoning: inferential reasoning and non-inferential reasoning. However, it is not entirely clear what the difference between these two kinds of reasoning is. In this paper, I try to answer the question what this difference is. I first discuss three answers to this question that I argue are unsatisfactory. I then give a different answer to this question, and I argue that this answer is satisfactory. I end by showing that (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Richard Foley (1978). Inferential Justification and the Infinite Regress. American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (4):311 - 316.score: 56.0
    It is commonly thought that the requirements of inferential justification are such that necessarily the process of inferentially justifying a belief will come to an end. But, If this is so, We should be able to pick out those requirements of justification which necessitate an end to the justification process. Unfortunately, Although there is nearly unanimous agreement as to the need for such an end, It is by no means clear which particular requirements of justification impose (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Alan R. Rhoda (2008). Fumerton's Principle of Inferential Justification, Skepticism, and the Nature of Inference. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:215-234.score: 56.0
    I argue that Richard Fumerton’s controversial “Principle of Inferential Justification” (PIJ) can be satisfactorily defended against several charges that have been leveled against it, namely, that it leads to skepticism, that it confuses different levels of justification, and that it involves a fallacy of “misconditionalization.”The basis of my defense of PIJ is a distinction between two theories of the nature of inference—an internalist conception (IC), according to which inferring requires that the reasoner have a conscious perspective on the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. D. Krause, The Problem of Identity and a Justification for Non-Reflexive Quantum Mechanics.score: 48.0
    In this paper we try to justify our way of looking for an alternative approach to quantum mechanics, which is based on a non-classical logic. We consider two specific questions related to quantum theory, namely, entanglement and the indiscernibility of quanta. We characterize individuals, and then explain in what sense entanglement is a concept which can be applied to individuals in a restricted sense only. Then, we turn to indiscernibility and, after realizing that this concept is of a fundamental importance, (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Hamid Vahid (2008). Experience and the Space of Reasons: The Problem of Non-Doxastic Justification. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 69 (3):295 - 313.score: 45.0
    It is not difficult to make sense of the idea that beliefs may derive their justification from other beliefs. Difficulties surface when, as in certain epistemological theories, one appeals to sensory experiences to give an account of the structure of justification. This gives rise to the so-called problem of ‘nondoxastic justification’, namely, the problem of seeing how sensory experiences can confer justification on the beliefs they give rise to. In this paper, I begin by criticizing a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Chris Tucker (forthcoming). On What Inferentially Justifies What: The Vices of Reliabilism and Proper Functionalism. Synthese.score: 45.0
    We commonly say that some evidence supports a hypothesis or that some premise evidentially supports a conclusion. Both internalists and externalists attempt to analyze this notion of evidential support, and the primary purpose of this paper is to argue that reliabilist and proper functionalist accounts of this relation fail. Since evidential support is one component of inferential justification, the upshot of this failure is that their accounts of inferential justification also fail. In Sect. 2, I clarify the evidential (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Marie McGinn (2012). Non-Inferential Knowledge. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (1pt1):1-28.score: 45.0
    This paper looks at statements I am in a position to make ‘straight off’: observational judgements, perceptual and memory statements, statements about my posture, my intentions, and so on. These kinds of statement pose a problem: what is the nature of my entitlement to them? I focus on observational judgements and on two contrasting approaches to them. The first, which I reject, provides an account of my warrant for them; the second, which I defend, disconnects my entitlement from possession of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Jan Almäng (2014). Perception, Non-Propositional Content and the Justification of Perceptual Judgments. Metaphysica 15 (1):1-23.score: 45.0
    It is often argued that for a perceptual experience to be able to justify perceptual judgments, the perceptual experience must have a propositional content. For, it is claimed, only propositions can bear logical relations such as implication to each other. In this paper, this claim is challenged. It is argued that whereas perceptions and judgments both have intentional content, their contents have different structures. Perceptual content does not have a propositional structure. Perceptions and judgments can nevertheless have the same cognitive (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. John-Michael Kuczynski (2001). Are Any of Our Beliefs About Ourselves Non-Inferential or Infallible? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 21 (1):20-45.score: 45.0
    We are aware of truths (e.g. the truth that the shoes I'm now wearing are uncomfortably tight) and also of states of affairs (e.g. the uncomfortable tightness of said shoes). My awareness of the tightness of my shoes---not, be it emphasized, of the corresponding truth, but of the shoe-related mass-energy-distribution underlying that truth---is an instance, not of truth-awareness, but of fact-awareness or, as I prefer to put, object-awareness. The aforementioned truth-awareness corresponding to that object-awareness is the result of my conceptualizing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Marie McGinn (2012). The Presidential Address: Non-Inferential Knowledge. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112:1 - 28.score: 45.0
    This paper looks at statements I am in a position to make 'straight off': observational judgements, perceptual and memory statements, statements about my posture, my intentions, and so on. These kinds of statement pose a problem: what is the nature of my entitlement to them? I focus on observational judgements and on two contrasting approaches to them. The first, which I reject, provides an account of my warrant for them; the second, which I defend, disconnects my entitlement from possession of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek (forthcoming). Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation:1-15.score: 45.0
    The aim of the paper is to explore the interrelation between persuasion tactics and properties of speech acts. We investigate two types of arguments ad: ad hominem and ad baculum. We show that with both of these tactics, the structures that play a key role are not inferential, but rather ethotic, i.e., related to the speaker’s character and trust. We use the concepts of illocutionary force and constitutive conditions related to the character or status of the speaker in order to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Kenneth Hobson (2008). Foundational Beliefs and the Structure of Justification. Synthese 164 (1):117 - 139.score: 42.0
    I argue that our justification for beliefs about the external physical world need not be constituted by any justified beliefs about perceptual experiences. In this way our justification for beliefs about the physical world may be nondoxastic and this differentiates my proposal from traditional foundationalist theories such as those defended by Laurence BonJour, Richard Fumerton, and Timothy McGrew. On the other hand, it differs from certain non-traditional foundationalist theories such as that defended by James Pryor according to which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. George S. Pappas (1982). Non-Inferential Knowledge. Philosophia 12 (December):81-98.score: 42.0
  33. Gilbert Harman (1976). Inferential Justification. Journal of Philosophy 73 (17):570-571.score: 42.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. R. A. Fumerton (1976). Inferential Justification and Empiricism. Journal of Philosophy 73 (17):557-569.score: 42.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Paolo Tripodi (2013). A Myth to Kill a Myth? On McDowell's Interpretation of Sellars' Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Theoria 79 (4):353-377.score: 42.0
    According to McDowell, in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind the myth of Jones has the purpose of completing the account of experience that Sellars needs to argue against traditional empiricism. In particular, on McDowell's view the myth of Jones should explain how to conceive of non-inferentially knowable experiences as containing propositional claims. This article argues that the myth of Jones does not succeed in providing such an account, especially on McDowell's own terms: assuming McDowell's epistemological distinction between inferential and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Christopher Hookway (2000). Scepticism and the Principle of Inferential Justification. Noûs 34 (s1):344 - 365.score: 42.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Josep E. Corbí (2000). The Principle of Inferential Justification, Scepticism, and Causal Beliefs. Philosophical Issues 10 (1):377-385.score: 42.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Josep E. Corbi (2000). The Principle of Inferential Justification, Scepticism, and Causal Beliefs. Noûs 34 (s1):377 - 385.score: 42.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Jukka Varelius (forthcoming). Is the Non-Rivalrousness of Intellectual Objects a Problem for the Moral Justification of Economic Rights to Intellectual Property? Science and Engineering Ethics:1-12.score: 42.0
    It is often argued that the fact that intellectual objects—objects like ideas, inventions, concepts, and melodies—can be used by several people simultaneously makes intellectual property rights impossible or particularly difficult to morally justify. In this article, I assess the line of criticism of intellectual ownership in connection with a central category of intellectual property rights, economic rights to intellectual property. I maintain that it is unconvincing.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Ian A. Apperly, Elisa Back, Dana Samson & Lisa France (2008). The Cost of Thinking About False Beliefs: Evidence From Adults' Performance on a Non-Inferential Theory of Mind Task. Cognition 106 (3):1093-1108.score: 42.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Alexander Bird (2004). Is Knowledge Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly:252-65.score: 42.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Robert B. Brandom (2002). Non-Inferential Knowledge, Perceptual Experience, and Secondary Qualities: Placing McDowell's Empiricism. In Reading McDowell: On Mind and World. New York: Routledge.score: 42.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Martin Montminy (2005). A Non-Compositional Inferential Role Theory. Erkenntnis 62 (2):211-233.score: 39.0
    I propose a version of inferential role theory which says that having a concept is having the disposition to draw most of the inferences based on the stereotypical features associated with this concept. I defend this view against Fodor and Lepore.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. James Cornman (1978). ``Foundational Versus Non-Foundational Theories of Empirical Justification&Quot. In Pappas & Swain (eds.), Essays on Knowledge and Justification. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 229-252.score: 39.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Chris Tucker (2010). Why Open-Minded People Should Endorse Dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):529-545.score: 36.0
    Open-minded people should endorse dogmatism because of its explanatory power. Dogmatism holds that, in the absence of defeaters, a seeming that P necessarily provides non-inferential justification for P. I show that dogmatism provides an intuitive explanation of four issues concerning non-inferential justification. It is particularly impressive that dogmatism can explain these issues because prominent epistemologists have argued that it can’t address at least two of them. Prominent epistemologists also object that dogmatism is absurdly permissive because it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. William Smith (2004). Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience. Res Publica 10 (4):353-377.score: 36.0
    This paper develops a theory of civil disobedience informed by a deliberative conception of democracy. In particular, it explores the justification of illegal, public and political acts of protest in constitutional deliberative democracies. Civil disobedience becomes justifiable when processes of public deliberation fail to respect the principles of a deliberative democracy in the following three ways: when deliberation is insufficiently inclusive; when it is manipulated by powerful participants; and when it is insufficiently informed. As a contribution to ongoing processes (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Thomas de Praetere (1998). La Justification du principe de non-contradiction. Revue Philosophique De Louvain 96 (1):51-68.score: 36.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Peter J. Graham (2014). Against Transglobal Reliabilism. Philosophical Studies 169 (3):525-535.score: 36.0
    David Henderson and Terry Horgan argue that doxastic epistemic justification requires the transglobal reliability of the belief-forming process. Transglobal reliability is reliability across a wide range of experientially possible global environments. Focusing on perception, I argue that justification does not require transglobal reliability, for perception is non-accidentally reliable and confers justification but not always transglobally reliable. Transglobal reliability is an epistemically desirable property of belief-forming processes, but not necessary for justification.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. William J. Talbott (2014). The Elusiveness of a Non-Question-Begging Justification for Morality. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):191-204.score: 36.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000