Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology

The internalism/externalism distinction in epistemology applies to both theories of justification and theories of knowledge. The distinction is most clearly defined for theories of justification. An internalist theory of epistemic justification is any theory that maintains that epistemic justifiedness is exclusively a function of states internal to the cognizer. Externalism is the denial of internalism. Thus, an externalist theory is any theory that maintains that epistemic justifiedness is at least partly a function of states or factors external to the cognizer, i.e., states or factors outside the cognizer’s ken. There is no unified agreement among internalists as to which internal states are epistemically relevant, and different internalisms emerge based on the subset of internal states deemed relevant. (See Internalism and Justification for details.) Internalists typically maintain that justification is a normative notion in the belief-guiding/regulative sense. Internalists also typically maintain that one can tell whether one is justified in believing p simply by reflecting on one’s internal evidence for p. The central internalist intuition, as highlighted by the New Evil Demon Problem is this: There can be no difference in justification without a difference in epistemically relevant internal states. Externalism is motivated by the intuition that epistemic justification must be conceptually connected to truth such that the conditions that make a belief justified also make it objectively probable. Externalists are also typically motivated by the view that children and animals can form justified beliefs, while failing to satisfy the internalist’s intellectualist requirements for justification. The dominant externalist theory of justification is process reliabilism, a simplified version of which holds that a belief is justified iff it’s produced by a reliable process. There is less canonical agreement when it comes to applying the internalist/externalist distinction to theories of knowledge. In one sense, every plausible epistemology is an externalist theory because every plausible epistemology requires an externalist truth condition and an externalist Gettier-blocking fillip. However, in another widely used sense, “externalist” theories of knowledge are theories that replace the internalist justification condition with either an externalist justification condition or some other externalist constraint (such as a causal or modal constraint); while “internalist” theories of knowledge hold that internalist justification is necessary for knowledge and also typically hold that no other kind of justification is needed for knowledge, though they do incorporate some sort of externalist constraint to handle the Gettier problem.

Religious Convictions and Moral Motivation

Adherence to certain religious beliefs is often cited as both an efficient deterrent to immoral behavior and as an effective trigger of morally praiseworthy actions. I assume the truth of the externalist theory of motivation, emphasizing emotions as the most important non-cognitive elements that causally contribute to behavioral choices. While religious convictions may foster an array of complex emotions in a believer, three emotive states are singled out for a closer analysis: fear, guilt and gratitude. The results of recent empirical studies are examined to evaluate the relative motivational efficiency of all three emotions, as well as the likely negative psychological side-effects of these affective states, such as aggression and depression. While an action motivated by fear of punishment can be seen as a merely prudential strategy, the reparatory incentive of a guilty subject and a desire to reciprocate of the one blessed by undeserved favors are more plausible candidates for the class of genuine moral reactions. The available evidence, however, does not warrant a conclusion that a sense of guilt before God or as a sense of gratefulness to wards God, may produce a statistically significant increase in the frequency of prosocial actions aimed at other humans.

The Integrity of State Courts under the Australian Constitution

The well-known Kable decision, and the line of authorities to which it has given rise, derives a doctrine of the integrity of state courts from Ch III of the Australian Constitution. The basis for this doctrine, however, as well as its meaning and extent, remains contentious. This article articulates a coherent basis for the Kable doctrine, which both reveals it to rest on a genuine implication arising from the text of Ch III and contributes to an understanding of the content of the doctrine. The method that the article adopts to achieve a rigorous grounding of the Kable doctrine is predominantly theoretical, combining three philosophical approaches: a speech-act analysis of the relevant constitutional provisions, the semantic externalist theory of reference developed by Putnam and Kripke and a sociological understanding of institutions (including legal institutions) along the lines developed by Selznick. As the Kable doctrine is one of the fundamental components of contemporary Australian public law, showing that it is not merely a product of judicial invention in pursuit of desirable policy, but rather is genuinely grounded in the text of the Constitution, is important for establishing not only the legitimacy of the doctrine itself but the legitimacy of that larger body of law.

Function Is Not Enough

The “nature” of an artifact is often equated with its function. Clearly, an artifactual function must be an extrinsic property. This feature of functions has important implications on the semantics of artifactual kind terms: it enables us to vindicate that artifactual kind terms have an externalist semantics. Any alleged externalist theory, indeed, must show that the referents of the considered terms share a common nature (i.e., an extrinsic property), whether we know or could possibly ever know what that nature is. However, the state of the art shows that function is not enough to represent such “nature”: function does not exhaustively account for important phenomena that characterize artifacts and artifactual kinds, nor does it thoroughly define what they are. Thus, extending the scope of externalism to artifactual kind terms seems doomed to fail. Pace opposite views, it could even be argued that artifacts are a sub-class of social kinds. If so, not only social but also artifactual kind terms cannot refer externalistically, since their referents constitutively depend on human intentions and norms. Either way, externalism fails to apply to those kinds of terms.

Putnam, Hilary (1926–2016)

Putnam’s work spans a broad spectrum of philosophical interests, yet nonetheless reflects thematic unity in its concern over the question of realism. The dynamic nature of Putnam's thought manifests itself in his critique and revision of some of his own significant contributions to philosophy, such as the theories of functionalism and quantum logic. The driving force underlying this dynamic is a persistent attempt to defend the notions of truth and objectivity against philosophical positions that discredit them. Beginning his career as a critic of logical positivism, Putnam opposed verificationism and conventionalism, arguing for a realist understanding of scientific theories. He rejected the traditional conception of meaning according to which speaker’ mental states determine meaning and consequently, reference, and put forward a conception of meaning on which external reality, what one talks about, contributes essentially to meaning. Further, citing what he called the division of linguistic labour, Putnam saw the conferring of meaning as a social rather than an individual enterprise. In response to the relativistic challenge that the incommensurability of different theories precludes any possibility of intertheoretical dialogue, Putnam construed reference as relatively insensitive to theoretical variation, so that the continuity and rationality of science and communication are upheld. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics posed yet another difficulty for realism, for it construed quantum states as probability amplitudes rather than real physical states, as is the case in classical mechanics. Putnam initially saw quantum logic as an alternative which was compatible with realism, and argued that logic, like geometry, can be revised on the basis of empirical considerations. Without retracting the general point about the feasibility of a revision of logic, Putnam eventually distanced himself from quantum logic, and pursued other ways of saving realism and solving the notorious measurement problem that plagues the Copenhagen interpretation. In the philosophy of mind, Putnam proposed functionalism, the view that mental states are characterized by function rather than material constitution. Despite the great impact of functionalism, Putnam came to the conclusion that on their own, functional state are insufficient to characterize mental states. He used his externalist theory of meaning to argue for a broader view of the mental that takes account of the mind's links to external reality and the diverse experiences of different speakers. The externalist theory of meaning thus impacts on other issues central to Putnam's philosophy. Putnam also made substantial contributions to mathematics, including is work on the insolvability of Hilbert’s tenth problem. Hilbert's 1900 list of 23 outstanding problems in mathematics set the agenda for generations of mathematicians so that progress on each one of these problems is a milestone in the history of mathematics. In 1976, Putnam launched an attack on the coherence of the view he termed ’metaphysical realism’. The metaphysical realist maintains there is a single theory that is true of the world and that its truth is absolutely objective, independently of the theory's conceptual frame and its verification procedure. Arguing that relativism and scepticism are disguised forms of metaphysical realism, and likewise incoherent, he suggested an alternative, referred to as ’internal realism’. Internal realism replaced this notion of truth with that of warranted assertability. In so doing it constituted a significant change, for it meant adopting a verificationist theory of meaning, a theory that Putnam had objected to in earlier writings. Within a few years, however, Putnam became dissatisfied with internal realism, surmising that verificationism was incoherent. Although he remained critical of some naïve versions of realism, his later philosophy is undoubtedly realist not only with regard to scientific and mathematical truth, but also with regard to moral values. Articulation of this recovered realism and its viability as an alternative to conventionalist and relativist positions is the focus of many of Putnam’s later writings, as well as much of the criticism they have incurred. Putnam's search for a philosophical position that secures a place for objective truth has always been accompanied by deep moral and social sensibilities. These sensibilities were first expressed in political activity but as of the late 1970s are also manifest in his philosophical writings. Many of Putnam's later titles bear witness to his engagement with moral issues: Meaning and the Moral Sciences (1978), Realism with a Human Face (1990a), Words and Life (1994),The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy (2002), Ethics Without Ontology (2004) and Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life (2008).

Rationalist Metaphysics, Semantics, and Metasemantics

Rationalism offers an account of moral properties as a subset of the properties which serve to rationalize right actions, and these properties are fit to be the referents of our moral terms. That fitness can be exploited in constructing an externalist theory of reference determination for these terms. The resulting externalist theory draws support from standard responses to Moral Twin-Earth scenarios. The relevance of these responses to moral semantics has recently been vigorously challenged by Dowell and by Schroeter and Schroeter. The social character of meaning relations, which can explain the openness of questions about an analysis, may thereby also make Twin-Earth judgements beside the point. But the resources available to translators go beyond semantic competence and it is these resources that nonetheless make the Moral Twin-Earth responses relevant.