Philosophical Studies 38 (1):53 - 63 (1980)
It is generally conceded that a principle of coherence is needed to give a complete account of justification. Even the most prominent foundationalists of this century have included coherence principles among those epistemic principles which they defend. Against this prevailing view, I suggest that a principle of coherence is not needed in order to give an adequate account of justification. However, Instead of arguing directly for this claim, I defend the only slightly less controversial claim that contrary to what foundationalists such as roderick chisholm think, Foundationalists theories of justification can be developed adequately without recourse to a principle of coherence
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Can Coherence Generate Warrant Ex Nihilo? Probability and the Logic of Concurring Witnesses.James van Cleve - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):337-380.
Foundationalism, Coherentism, and the Levels Gambit.David Shatz - 1983 - Synthese 55 (1):97 - 118.
Similar books and articles
The Incoherence of Coherence Theories.Richard Fumerton - 1994 - Journal of Philosophical Research 19:89-102.
Chisholm on Personal Identity and the Attribution of Experiences.Martine Nida-Rumelin - 1997 - In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Chisholm on Intentionality: De Se, de Re, and de Dicto.Jaegwon Kim - 1997 - In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #301,299 of 2,177,979 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,206 of 2,177,979 )
How can I increase my downloads?