Abstract
AbstractThis paper replies to commentary on my On Evidence in Philosophy, offered by critics Michael Bergmann and Earl Conee. It addresses their concerns regarding (1) whether my explanatory coherentism can explain the justification of introspective beliefs; (2) whether my epistemology is really coherentist rather than foundationalist; (3) my Principle of Humility; (4) my defense of free‐will compatibilism; (5) whether question‐begging is always unacceptable; and (6) whether intuitions qualify as evidence.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have