Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Reichenbach’s Posits Reposited.David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg - 2007 - Erkenntnis 69 (1):93 - 108.
    Reichenbach’s use of ‘posits’ to defend his frequentistic theory of probability has been criticized on the grounds that it makes unfalsifiable predictions. The justice of this criticism has blinded many to Reichenbach’s second use of a posit, one that can fruitfully be applied to current debates within epistemology. We show first that Reichenbach’s alternative type of posit creates a difficulty for epistemic foundationalists, and then that its use is equivalent to a particular kind of Jeffrey conditionalization. We conclude that, under (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reichenbach’s Posits Reposited.David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg - 2008 - Erkenntnis 69 (1):93-108.
    Reichenbach's use of 'posits' to defend his frequentistic theory of probability has been criticized on the grounds that it makes unfalsifiable predictions. The justice of this criticism has blinded many to Reichenbach's second use of a posit, one that can fruitfully be applied to current debates within epistemology. We show first that Reichenbach's alternative type of posit creates a difficulty for epistemic foundationalists, and then that its use is equivalent to a particular kind of Jeffrey conditionalization. We conclude that, under (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Dialectics of Infinitism and Coherentism: Inferential Justification Versus Holism and Coherence.Frederik Herzberg - 2014 - Synthese 191 (4):701-723.
    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 of Inferential Justification (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Similarity and Acquaintance: A Dilemma.Ted Poston - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (3):369-378.
    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 by developing (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Probability Without Certainty: Foundationalism and the Lewis–Reichenbach Debate.David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (3):442-453.
    Like many discussions on the pros and cons of epistemic foundationalism, the debate between C.I. Lewis and H. Reichenbach dealt with three concerns: the existence of basic beliefs, their nature, and the way in which beliefs are related. In this paper we concentrate on the third matter, especially on Lewis’s assertion that a probability relation must depend on something that is certain, and Reichenbach’s claim that certainty is never needed. We note that Lewis’s assertion is prima facie ambiguous, but argue (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Prospects for A Levinasian Epistemic Infinitism.J. Aaron Simmons & Scott F. Aikin - 2012 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (3):437-460.
    Abstract Epistemic infinitism is certainly not a majority view in contemporary epistemology. While there are some examples of infinitism in the history of philosophy, more work needs to be done mining this history in order to provide a richer understanding of how infinitism might be formulated internal to different philosophical frameworks. Accordingly, we argue that the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas can be read as operating according to an ?impure? model of epistemic infinitism. The infinite obligation inaugurated by the ?face to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • C. I. Lewis on the Given and its Interpretation.Laurence BonJour - 2004 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 28 (1):195–208.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Privileged Access and the Status of Self-Knowledge in Cartesian and Freudian Conceptions of the Mental.M. Eagle - 1982 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 12 (4):349-373.
  • The Philosophy of Hans Reichenbach.Wesley C. Salmon - 1977 - Synthese 34 (1):5 - 88.
  • Prospects for Skeptical Foundationalism.Scott F. Aikin - 2007 - Metaphilosophy 38 (5):578-590.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Grounds and Limits: Reichenbach and Foundationalist Epistemology.Jeanne Peijnenburg & David Atkinson - 2011 - Synthese 181 (1):113 - 124.
    From 1929 onwards, C. I. Lewis defended the foundationalist claim that judgements of the form 'x is probable' only make sense if one assumes there to be a ground y that is certain (where x and y may be beliefs, propositions, or events). Without this assumption, Lewis argues, the probability of x could not be anything other than zero. Hans Reichenbach repeatedly contested Lewis's idea, calling it "a remnant of rationalism". The last move in this debate was a challenge by (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: The Constructivist Thesis and Relativism.Paul Tibbetts - 1986 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 16 (1):39-57.
  • Who is Afraid of Epistemology’s Regress Problem?Scott F. Aikin - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191-217.
    What follows is a taxonomy of arguments that regresses of inferential justification are vicious. They fall out into four general classes: conceptual arguments from incompleteness, conceptual arguments from arbitrariness, ought-implies-can arguments from human quantitative incapacities, and ought-implies can arguments from human qualitative incapacities. They fail with a developed theory of "infinitism" consistent with valuational pluralism and modest epistemic foundationalism.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Updating, Undermining, and Independence.Jonathan Weisberg - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (1):121-159.
    Sometimes appearances provide epistemic support that gets undercut later. In an earlier paper I argued that standard Bayesian update rules are at odds with this phenomenon because they are ‘rigid’. Here I generalize and bolster that argument. I first show that the update rules of Dempster–Shafer theory and ranking theory are rigid too, hence also at odds with the defeasibility of appearances. I then rebut three Bayesian attempts to solve the problem. I conclude that defeasible appearances pose a more difficult (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • De Finetti's Probabilism.Richard Jeffrey - 1984 - Synthese 60 (1):73 - 90.