Skepticism and Perceptual Justification, edited by Dylan Dodd and Elia Zardini

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-255
Author(s):  
Ted Poston
2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-191
Author(s):  
Tommaso Piazza

In the first part of this paper I suggest that Dogmatism about perceptual justification – the view that in the most basic cases, perceptual justification is immediate – commits to rejecting Evidentialism, as it commits, specifically, to accounting for the mechanics of perceptual justification otherwise than by maintaining that perceptual experiences justify by providing evidence. In the second part of the paper, by following W. Hopp’s recent interpretation of Husserl’s Sixth Logical Investigation, I suggest that Husserl’s theory of fulfilment provides the basis of the non-evidential account of the mechanics of perceptual justification needed to vindicate Dogmatism.


2021 ◽  
pp. 115-136
Author(s):  
Kevin McCain ◽  
Luca Moretti

This chapter further elucidates PE by explaining how it applies to multiple domains. Though the preceding chapter already touches upon some of these, here it is cashed out how PE can account for perceptual justification, memorial justification, testimonial justification, introspective justification, and a priori justification. Exploring the contours of PE in this way reveals just how powerful and unified the theory is. Along the way, it is argued that Declan Smithies’ forceful objections to PC fail to impugn PE. Additionally, it is shown that PE has the resources to respond to each of the challenges that Smithies claims are faced by any internalist theory with “global ambitions”––any theory that purports to be a comprehensive account of epistemic justification. (These challenges for instance include the problem of forgotten evidence and the problem of stored beliefs.) The discussion in this chapter makes it clear that PE is a comprehensive account of epistemic justification that achieves its global ambitions.


Episteme ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Luca Moretti

AbstractCrispin Wright maintains that the architecture of perceptual justification is such that we can acquire justification for our perceptual beliefs only if we have antecedent justification for ruling out any sceptical alternative. Wright contends that this principle doesn't elicit scepticism, for we are non-evidentially entitled to accept the negation of any sceptical alternative. Sebastiano Moruzzi has challenged Wright's contention by arguing that since our non-evidential entitlements don't remove the epistemic risk of our perceptual beliefs, they don't actually enable us to acquire justification for these beliefs. In this paper I show that Wright's responses to Moruzzi are ineffective and that Moruzzi's argument is validated by probabilistic reasoning. I also suggest that Wright couldn't answer Moruzzi's challenge without weakening the support available for his conception of the architecture of perceptual justification.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalisa Coliva

The paper contains the replies to the comments made by Alan Millar, Yuval Avnur, Giorgio Volpe, and Maria Baghramian on my Extended Rationality: A Hinge Epistemology. It addresses, in particular, the nature of perceptual justification, the truth of hinges, my response to Humean skepticism and the issue of epistemic relativism.


Theoria ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid Vahid

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Broncano-Berrocal

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie Munton ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document