Reliabilism

Author(s):  
Alvin I. Goldman

Reliabilism is an approach to the nature of knowledge and of justified belief. Reliabilism about justification, in its simplest form, says that a belief is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable psychological process, meaning a process that produces a high proportion of true beliefs. A justified belief may itself be false, but its mode of acquisition (or the way it is subsequently sustained) must be of a kind that typically yields truths. Since random guessing, for example, does not systematically yield truths, beliefs acquired by guesswork are not justified. By contrast, identifying middle-sized physical objects by visual observation is presumably pretty reliable, so beliefs produced in this manner are justified. Reliabilism does not require that the possessor of a justified belief should know that it was reliably produced. Knowledge of reliability is necessary for knowing that a belief is justified, but the belief can be justified without the agent knowing that it is. A similar reliabilist account is offered for knowledge, except that two further conditions are added. First, the target belief must be true and, second, its mode of acquisition must rule out all serious or ‘relevant’ alternatives in which the belief would be false. Even an accurate visual identification of Judy does not constitute knowledge unless it is acute enough to exclude the possibility that it is her twin sister Trudy instead. One major virtue of reliabilism is its ability to secure knowledge against threats of scepticism. In place of excessive requirements often proposed by sceptics, reliabilism substitutes more moderate conditions. People do not need infallible or certainty-producing processes to have justified beliefs, according to reliabilism, only fairly reliable ones. Processes need not exclude radical alternatives like Descartes’ evil demon in order to generate knowledge; they need only exclude realistic possibilities like the presence of an identical twin.

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Rysiew

Knowing that p requires being able to ‘rule out’ the relevant not-p alternatives. Such is the core claim of the Relevant Alternatives (RA) theorist. Of course, to endorse the core claim is not to have a complete and satisfactory account of knowing: any RA theorist has some explaining to do. Most obviously, anyone who endorses the core claim must ultimately provide an account of ‘ruling out’ and ‘relevance’. And some who‘ve been critical of the whole RA approach have done so because of a scepticism about the prospects of cashing these notions out in a satisfactory way.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Leite

Penelope Maddy claims that we can have no evidence that we are not being globally deceived by an evil demon. However, Maddy’s Plain Inquirer holds that she has good evidence for a wide variety of claims about the world and her relation to it. She rejects the broadly Cartesian idea that she can’t be entitled to these claims, or have good evidence for them, or know them, unless she can provide a defense of them that starts from nowhere. She likewise rejects the more limited demand for a defense that makes use only of considerations that do not concern the world outside of her mind. She allows that some considerations about the world can be appealed to perfectly appropriately as fully adequate evidence in favor of other considerations about the world. So why can’t the Plain Inquirer rule out global skeptical hypotheses by producing evidence against them that depends upon other considerations about the world? Is there good reason for singling out global skeptical hypotheses such as I am not being deceived by an evil demon as requiring a different kind of treatment? Considerations about epistemic asymmetry and epistemic circularity, as well as Wittgensteinian considerations about the relation between evidence and the real-world and human background context, all lead to the conclusion that there is not.


Author(s):  
Christoph Kelp

Chapter 1 focuses on epistemologically substantive accounts of the aims of inquiry into specific questions. It mounts a detailed case that knowing that p/not-p is the aim of inquiry into whether p. To this end, Chapter 1 first develops two arguments that the knowledge aim of inquiry compares favourably with the main rivals in the literature, according to which the aim of inquiry is true belief or justified belief. Next, it shows how these arguments can be generalized to other views about the aim of inquiry that might be conceived. Finally, Chapter 1 responds to a number of objections to the idea that knowledge is the aim of inquiry and the argument developed in support of it.


2021 ◽  
pp. 170-188
Author(s):  
Sven Rosenkranz

The present account, which construes justification as a kind of epistemic possibility of knowing, or of being in a position to know, competes with three recently advanced theories of justification. Of these competitors, the first two construe doxastic justification as the metaphysical possibility of knowing. While they differ in some details, these views share certain problematic features: they fail to yield a corresponding account of propositional justification, have trouble vindicating an intuitive principle of closure for justified belief, and fail to comply with the independently plausible principle that if one has a justified belief, one is in no position to rule out that one has knowledge. The present account does not have these problematic features. According to the third competitor, |φ‎| is propositionally justified in one’s situation just in case it would be abnormal—and so require explanation—if |φ‎| were to be false in the presence of the evidence that one possesses in that situation. This normic theory of justification validates the principle that propositional justification agglomerates over conjunction, and in so doing, violates the constraint that propositions of the form ⌜φ‎ & ¬Kφ‎⌝ never be justified. It likewise contradicts the independently plausible principle that whenever |φ‎| is propositionally justified all things considered, |¬Kφ‎| is not. The present account does not face these problems, since it rejects the relevant agglomeration principle and treats the condition encoded by ⌜¬K¬Kφ‎⌝ as luminous.


2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel J. Tilden

On January 7, 2003, Sydney Cowan, a healthy six-year-old girl, underwent skin harvesting, specifically to be used for her badly burned identical twin sister, Jennifer. A day earlier, the Probate Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, after considering whether a healthy minor twin sibling could serve as a skin donor for her severely burned sister, authorized parental consent to the surgery. More accurately, the court addressed whether Sydney could undergo surgical procedures that provided her with no physical benefit, but, rather, resulted in harmful effects, such as acute postoperative pain, permanent residua, and potential long-term emotional and psychological dysfunction.Although the transplants were extraordinarily successful, and the newspaper article depicted Sydney's participation in heroic terms, the harvesting of Sydney's skin was ethically problematic. Specifically, I assert that the use of an incompetent minor as a skin transplant donor, even if an identical twin, is not justified unless the transplant will save the recipient's life.


2015 ◽  
pp. 525
Author(s):  
Alan Clinton Bale ◽  
Neon Brooks ◽  
David Barner

When faced with a sentence like "Some of the toys are on the table," adults, but not preschoolers, compute a scalar implicature, taking the sentence to imply that not all the toys are on the table. This paper explores the hypothesis that children fail to compute scalar implicatures because they lack knowledge of the relevant scalar alternatives to words like "some." Four-year-olds were shown pictures in which three out of three objects fit a description (e.g., three animals reading), and were asked to evaluate statements that relied on context-independent alternatives (e.g., knowing that "all" is an alternative to "some" for the utterance "Some of the animals are reading") or contextual alternatives (e.g., knowing that the set of all three visible animals is an alternative to a set of two for the utterance "Only the cat and the dog are reading"). Children failed to reject the false statements containing context-independent scales even when the word "only" was used (e.g., "only some"), but correctly rejected equivalent statements containing contextual alternatives (e.g., "only the cat and dog"). These results support the hypothesis that children’s difficulties with scalar implicature are due to a failure to generate relevant alternatives for specific scales. Consequences for number word learning are also discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 95-109
Author(s):  
Mikhail G. Khort ◽  

The article defends an internalist version of the virtue epistemology. This point contradicts many contemporary theories of epistemic virtues, as they are mostly externalistic. This is partly due to the fact that externalism is more consistent with cognitive science, situationism and the social epistemology. Another reason is that it was the externalists who revived interest in the aretic approach within the framework of modern epistemology. Nevertheless, the author shows that it is internalism that offers the best answer to the question about the essence of epistemic virtues. In the introductory part of the article, the classical definitions of internalism and externalism are given. It is explained that the author use an extended definition of internalism, which is characterized by the inclusion epistemic virtues in the structure of justification. The second part is devoted to critic of externalism. The New Evil Demon Problem is the instrument of analysis. The author shows that there are scenarios in which the function of justification as a reliable “guide” to truth cannot serve as a criterion for epistemic evaluation. Situations are possible in which the subject has a false but justified belief. Externalism cannot explain such scenarios, which motivates to abandon this approach. The third part of the article discusses internalism as a possible response to The New Evil Demon Problem. The author believes that justification should be considered as a deontological concept. The condition of reliability, which is an important element of externalism, must be replaced by the condition of correct motivation and epistemic debt. This means that the assessment of beliefs and subjects should be based on what motives they have and how they manifest them in cognition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (07) ◽  
pp. 762-768
Author(s):  
Ann M. Bruno ◽  
Julia D. López ◽  
Molly J. Stout ◽  
Methodius G. Tuuli ◽  
George A. Macones ◽  
...  

Objective Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is intended to assess fetal well-being during labor. Our objective was to test the hypothesis that findings of a category I tracing at any time in the 60 minutes prior to delivery would rule out neonatal acidemia. Study Design This was a planned secondary analysis of a single-center prospective cohort study of 8,580 singleton pregnancies undergoing labor with nonanomalous infants at term. Monitoring was reviewed by obstetric research nurses at 10-minute intervals in the 60 minutes prior to delivery. The primary outcome was acidemia, defined as an umbilical cord arterial pH of 7.10 or less. Results Of the 4,274 patients included, 42 (0.98%) infants had acidemia at birth. Of the 42 infants with acidemia, 13 (31%) had category I tracings in the 30 minutes prior to delivery. Three (7%) infants had neonatal acidemia despite category I tracing for >40 minutes in the 60 minutes prior to delivery. Conclusion Even in the presence of category I tracing in the 60 minutes prior to delivery, neonatal acidemia can still occur. Periods of category I should be interpreted within the clinical context of a priori risk for acidemia, knowing that it does not completely rule out acidemia.


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 575-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Hogrel ◽  
Fabien Zagnoli ◽  
Aurélie Canal ◽  
Bodvael Fraysse ◽  
Jean-Pierre Bouchard ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. e7.1-e7.4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina J. Caplin ◽  
Steven Dikman ◽  
Jonathan Winston ◽  
Harry Spiera ◽  
Jaime Uribarri

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document