Abstract
This paper is a reply to James Keller's criticisms of my ‘Foundationalism, Coherentism and the Levels Gambit’ (Synthese 55, April 1983).
Foundationalists have often claimed that, within a foundationalist framework, one can justify beliefs about epistemic principles in a mediate, empirical fashion, while escaping the charge of vicious circularity that is usually thought to afflict such methods of justification. In my original paper I attacked this foundationalist strategy; I argued that once mediate, empirical justification of epistemic principles is allowed, the foundationalist must also allow circular patterns of justification of the sort that he typically criticizes coherentists for espousing. Here I argue that Keller's reply only makes matters worse for the foundationalist. At several points, his reply turns out to be inconsistent either with reliabilism or with the foundationalist strategy he is trying to defend.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted to Professor Keller for helpful correspondence.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shatz, D. Circularity and epistemic principles: A reply to James Keller. Synthese 68, 369–382 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413838
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413838