Systematicity Without Epistemic Warrant?

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-135
Author(s):  
Stathis Psillos
Keyword(s):  
1991 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Taylor ◽  
Alvin Plantinga

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Levine

Two theses are central to foundationalism. First, the foundationalist claims that there is a class of propositions, a class of empirical contingent beliefs, that are ‘immediately justified’. Alternatively, one can describe these beliefs as ‘self–evident’, ‘non–inferentially justified’, or ‘self–warranted’, though these are not always regarded as entailing one another. The justification or epistemic warrant for these beliefs is not derived from other justified beliefs through inductive evidential support or deductive methods of inference. These ‘basic beliefs’ constitute the foundations of empirical knowledge. One can give a reason for the justification of a basic belief even though the justification for that belief is not based on other beliefs. Thus, according to Chisholm, if asked what one's justification was for thinking that one knew, presently, that one is thinking about a city one takes to be Albuquerque, one could simply say ‘what justifies me…is simply the fact that I am thinking about a city I take to be Albuquerque’.


2021 ◽  
pp. 188-209
Author(s):  
Jonathan Stoltz
Keyword(s):  

This chapter explores in some detail the question of whether Buddhist accounts of knowledge should be regarded as supportive of epistemic internalism or externalism. After unpacking how the distinction between internalism and externalism can or cannot be extended to the Buddhist epistemological context, it is argued that the Buddhist account stands largely in accord with an externalist account of epistemic warrant. The second half of the chapter examines Buddhist claims about whether the determination of a cognition’s knowledge status is intrinsic or extrinsic to a given cognition. Finally, the chapter concludes by arguing that the Buddhist account must be understood to endorse a version of externalism about the constitutive nature of cognitions.


Episteme ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Paddy Jane McShane

AbstractMy aim in this paper is to argue against what I call “epistemic” pessimism about moral testimony. Epistemic pessimists argue that moral testimony fails to transmit epistemic warrant as non-moral testimony does. I reject epistemic pessimism by defending the No Difference Thesis, that there is no in principle difference between the transmission of epistemic warrant by moral and non-moral testimony. The main thrust of my argument is that there is a good prima facie case to be made for the thesis, namely, that it is supported by all of the major current epistemological views of testimonial warrant, both reductionist and non-reductionist. After making this case, I consider five pessimist attempts to undermine the No Difference Thesis, and argue that none of these attempts succeeds. So, in the absence of any other compelling criticisms, we are justified in rejecting epistemic pessimism and accepting the No Difference Thesis.


1995 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 397 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Alston ◽  
Alvin Plantinga

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document