scholarly journals Confiabilismo, Justificação e Virtudes

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 265
Author(s):  
Breno Ricardo Guimarães Santos
Keyword(s):  

Este trabalho tem como propósito principal discutir duas propostas epistêmicas diferentes, ambas sob o título de confiabilismo. A primeira delas, o confiabilismo simples desenvolvido por Alvin Goldman, tem como objetivo central oferecer uma caracterização adequada do elemento justificacional presente na definição tradicional de conhecimento. A proposta de Goldman tem como desafio inicial responder apropriadamente à demanda gettieriana apresentada alguns anos antes, além de corrigir alguns problemas mais centrais que afetaram sua teoria causal do conhecimento. No entanto, a proposta externalista do confiabilismo simples de Goldman enfrentou alguns ataques sérios à sua noção de justificabilidade. Três desses ataques se tornaram mais célebres na literatura recente: o problema da generalidade, o problema da metaincoerência e o problema do novo gênio maligno. Cada uma a seu modo estabeleceu desafios reais à proposta confiabilista inicial. A segunda teoria confiabilista que iremos discutir consiste em uma reformulação da proposta goldmaniana, na figura do confiabilismo das virtudes – ou perspectivismo das virtudes, desenvolvido e defendido princicpalmente por Ernest Sosa, em uma série de trabalhos bastantes influentes na epistemologia contemporânea. Nestes trabalhos, Sosa foi capaz de inserir a noção de virtudes intelectuais no debate epistemológico recente, trazendo para o centro do debate externalista uma ideia de formação responsável de crenças, ao mesmo tempo em que tentou responder apropriadamente aos desafios mais centrais enfrentados pelo confiabilismo original. Na primeira parte do artigo apresentaremos a primeira dessas teorias para, logo em seguida, na segunda parte, oferecer um tratamento da reformulação sosiana da proposta confiabilista e uma defesa dessa proposta como mais adequada para lidar com algumas das demandas básicas de uma teoria da justificação apropriada.

Hypatia ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vrinda Dalmiya

This paper argues that the concept of care is significant not only for ethics, but for epistemology as well. After elucidating caring as a five-step dyadic relation, I go on to show its epistemic significance within the general framework of virtue epistemology as developed by Ernest Sosa, Alvin Goldman, and Linda Zagzebski. The notions of “care-knowing” and “care-based epistemology” emerge from construing caring (respectively) as a reliabilist and responsibilist virtue.


2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Meyer Luz

Este ensaio se ocupará de uma noção que debuta muito recentemente no cenário do debate epistemológico contemporâneo, a saber, a noção de virtude intelectual. Vamos discutir, aqui, uma das abordagens da noção de virtude, aquela moldada na forja confiabilista. Receberão destaque especial os trabalhos de Alvin Goldman e Ernest Sosa, nesta ordem. Veremos que ‘virtude intelectual’ será entendida, grosso modo, como uma evolução da noção de ‘processo confiável de formação de crenças’, evolução motivada por três críticas à teoria confiabilista. Pretendemos mostrar, ainda, que uma destas críticas não é resolvida, exatamente a crítica que ataca um dos pilares do programa confiabilista: a dispensa de crenças de segunda ordem sobre a justificação. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Justificação. Confiabilismo. Virtude intelectual. ABSTRACT This essay is concerned with a notion that was recently introduced in the contemporary epistemological debate, the notion of an intellectual virtue. We will be discussing one of the approaches to the notion of virtue, that which comes from the reliabilist forge. I will be especially concerned with the works of Alvin Goldman and Ernest Sosa, in that order. We will see that ‘intellectual virtue’ will be, by and large, understood as the evolution of the notion of ‘reliable belief-forming process’, an evolution that is prompted by three objections to reliabilist theory. We intend to show that one of those objections is not removed, precisely the one that is aimed at one of the pillars of the reliabilist program: the avoidance of a condition requiring second-order beliefs about justification. KEY WORDS – Justification. Reliabilism. Intellectual virtue.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. King

This article examines the main lines of contemporary thinking about analysis in philosophy. It first considers G. E. Moore’s statement of the paradox of analysis. It then reviews a number of accounts of analysis that address the paradox of analysis, including the account offered by Ernest Sosa 1983 and others by Felicia Ackerman (1981, 1986, 1991); the latter gives an account of analysis on which properties are the objects of analysis. It also discusses Jeffrey C. King’s (1998, 2007) accounts of philosophical analysis, before turning to views of analysis that are not aimed at addressing the paradox of analysis, including those associated with David Lewis, Frank Jackson, and David Chalmers. In particular, it comments on Lewis’s argument that conceptual analysis is simply a means for picking out the physical state that occupies a certain role, where formulating what that role is constitutes a conceptual analysis of the relevant notion.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Williams

AbstractIn his Reflective Knowledge, Ernest Sosa offers a theory of knowledge, broadly virtue-theoretic in character, that is meant to transcend simple ways of contrasting "internalist" with "externalist" or "foundationalist" with "coherentist" approaches to knowledge and justification. Getting beyond such simplifications, Sosa thinks, is the key to finding an exit from "the Pyrrhonian Problematic": the ancient and profound skeptical problem concerning the apparent impossibility of validating the reliability of our basic epistemic faculties and procedures in a way that escapes vicious circularity. Central to Sosa's anti-skeptical strategy is the claim that there are two kinds of knowledge. His thought is that animal knowledge, which can be understood in purely reliabilist terms, can ground justified trust in the reliability of our basic cognitive faculties, thus elevating us (without vicious circularity) to the level of reflective knowledge. I offer a sketch of an alternative approach, linking knowledge and justification with epistemic accountability and responsible belief-management, which casts doubt on the idea that "animal" knowledge is knowledge properly so-called. However, it turns out that this approach is (perhaps surprisingly) close in spirit to Sosa's. I suggest that the differences between us may rest on a disagreement over the possibility of providing a direct answer to the Pyrrhonian challenge.


Episteme ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-392
Author(s):  
Blake Roeber

ABSTRACTAccording to attributor virtue epistemology (the view defended by Ernest Sosa, John Greco, and others), S knows that p only if her true belief that p is attributable to some intellectual virtue, competence, or ability that she possesses. Attributor virtue epistemology captures a wide range of our intuitions about the nature and value of knowledge, and it has many able defenders. Unfortunately, it has an unrecognized consequence that many epistemologists will think is sufficient for rejecting it: namely, it makes knowledge depend on factors that aren't truth-relevant, even in the broadest sense of this term, and it also makes knowledge depend in counterintuitive ways on factors that are truth-relevant in the more common narrow sense of this term. As I show in this paper, the primary objection to interest-relative views in the pragmatic encroachment debate can be raised even more effectively against attributor virtue epistemology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (5) ◽  
pp. 274-276
Author(s):  
Duncan Pritchard ◽  
Keyword(s):  

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 197 (12) ◽  
pp. 5093-5100
Author(s):  
Christoph Kelp
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-179
Author(s):  
Armen T. Marsoobian
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document