G.E. Moore and the Problem of the Criterion

In this paper, I offer an understanding of G.E. Moore’s epistemology as presented in, “A Defence of Common Sense” and “Proof of an External World.” To frame the discussion, I look to Roderick Chisholm’s essay, The Problem of the Criterion. I begin by looking at two ways that Chisholm believes one can respond to the problem of the criterion, and, referring back to Moore’s essays, explain why it is not unreasonable for Chisholm to believe that he is following a line of reasoning that Moore might take. I then show why I believe Chisholm is actually trying to do something quite different from what Moore was, and thus misses Moore’s actual point. I conclude that Moore is best understood as rejecting traditional epistemological concerns. By forcing Moore to deal with a traditional epistemological problem, it will become clear how bold Moore’s “epistemology” is.

What Optimistic Responses to Deep Disagreement get Right (and Wrong)

In this paper, I argue for three theses. First, that the problem of Deep Disagreement is usefully understood as an instance of the skeptical Problem of the Criterion. Second, there are structural similarities between proposed optimistic answers to deep disagreement and the problem of the criterion. Third, in light of these similarities, there are both good and bad consequences for proposed solutions to the problem of deep disagreement.

What Optimistic Responses to Deep Disagreement get Right (and Wrong)

In this paper, I argue for three theses. First, that the problem of Deep Disagreement is usefully understood as an instance of the skeptical Problem of the Criterion. Second, there are structural similarities between proposed optimistic answers to deep disagreement and the problem of the criterion. Third, in light of these similarities, there are both good and bad consequences for proposed solutions to the problem of deep disagreement.

Agrippan Problems

In this article I consider Sextus’ account of the Five Modes and of the Two Modes in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism. I suggest that from these we can derive the basic form of a number of different problems which I refer to as “Agrippan problems,” where this category includes both the epistemic regress problem and the problem of the criterion. Finally, I suggest that there is a distinctive Agrippan problem present at the beginning of Hegel’s Science of Logic.

The Link Between Necessity And Randomness In Scientific Discovery

The article is devoted to the problem of the link between the essential and the accidental in the process of scientific discoveries. The author criticises Karl Popper concept who states that each scientific discovery is entirely “accidental”. The author‟ viewpoint is based on the methodology of dialectical materialism as a whole, the concept of dialectical determinism, current works on the theory of truth and the criterion of truth. The article treats randomness as the form of being and the phenomenon of necessity. The randomness is presented in the act of discovery by a variety of phenomena such as the particular time, the author of the discovery and the specific aspect of the scientific problem determining this discovery. The necessity here has to do with a specific measure reflecting the limits of change for the phenomenal side of scientific discovery, and this is true for other objective and subjective processes. The author argues that revealing the link between the essential and the accidental in scientific discovery is a critical foundation for solving all epistemological problems, the problem of the criterion of the truth in the first place.

Object files and unconscious perception: a reply to Quilty-Dunn

A wealth of cases – most notably blindsight and priming under inattention or suppression – have convinced philosophers and scientists alike that perception occurs outside awareness. In recent work (Phillips 2016a, 2018; Phillips and Block 2017, Peters et al. 2017), I dispute this consensus, arguing that any putative case of unconscious perception faces a dilemma. The dilemma divides over how absence of awareness is established. If subjective reports are used, we face the problem of the criterion: the concern that such reports underestimate conscious experience (Eriksen 1960, Holender 1986, Peters and Lau 2015). If objective measures are used, we face the problem of attribution: the concern that the case does not involve genuine individual-level perception. Quilty-Dunn (2019) presents an apparently compelling example of unconscious perception due to Mitroff et al. (2005) which, he contends, evades this dilemma. The case is fascinating. However, as I here argue, it does not escape the dilemma’s clutches.