Reasoning without regress

Synthese 196 (6):2263-2278 (2019)

Authors
Luis Rosa
University of Cologne
Abstract
In this paper I explore alternative ways of addressing the infinite regress problem of inference, as it was depicted in Lewis Carroll’s ‘What the Tortoise said to Achilles’. Roughly put, the problem is that if a claim to the effect that one’s premises give support to one’s conclusion must itself be part of one’s premises, then an infinite regress of reasons ensues. I discuss some recent attempts to solve that problem, but I find all of them to be wanting. Those attempts either require the reasoner to believe that her premises give support to her conclusion, or to take her premises to give support to her conclusion, where taking is not a doxastic attitude. I conclude that, on the face of the failure of those attempts to solve the problem, there is a strong prima facie case for allowing inference to be blind.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1535-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,474
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is Inference?Paul Boghossian - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (1):1-18.
The Philosophy of Philosophy.Timothy Williamson - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 145 (3):455-464.
On the Relationship Between Propositional and Doxastic Justification.John Turri - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):312-326.
Change in View.Gilbert Harman - 1986 - Behaviorism 16 (1):93-96.
Comment on Paul Boghossian, "What is Inference".Crispin Wright - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (1):27-37.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Strong and Weak Regress Arguments.Jan Willem Wieland - 2013 - Logique and Analyse 224:439-461.
Reasoning and Regress.Markos Valaris - 2014 - Mind 123 (489):101-127.
Human Knowledge and the Infinite Progress of Reasoning.Peter Klein - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (1):1 - 17.
Carroll’s Regress and the Epistemology of Logic.Patrice Philie - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (2):183 - 210.
The Virtuous Tortoise.David Botting - 2017 - Philosophical Investigations 40 (1):31-39.
The Virtuous Tortoise.David Botting - 2016 - Philosophical Investigations 39 (4).
The Epistemic Regress Problem.Andrew D. Cling - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (3):401 - 421.
The Rational Roles of Intuition.Elijah Chudnoff - 2014 - In Anthony Booth & Darrell Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
Carroll’s Regress and the Epistemology of Logic.Patrice Philie - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (2):183-210.
Infinite Regress Arguments.Jan Willem Wieland - 2013 - Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-09-07

Total views
68 ( #123,357 of 2,273,222 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #38,735 of 2,273,222 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature