Abstract

Almeder considers three versions of naturalism. The most radical claims that legitimate questions can only be answered by science, so epistemology should be replaced by scientific psychology. Moderate naturalism holds that there is a legitimate role for philosophy and for science in epistemology: philosophy tells us what knowledge is, but since it is reliably-produced true belief, science tells us how much we can have. “Harmless” naturalism holds that philosophy can provide us with non-scientific knowledge that is nevertheless subject to indirect empirical confirmation. Almeder rejects the first two versions of naturalism and defends the last. The results are unsatisfactory. Limitations of space compel me to focus only on some particularly crucial aspects of Almeder’s position.