Theory Of Epistemic Justification Research Articles

Appearance and Explanation: Phenomenal Explanationism in Epistemology by Kevin McCain and Luca Moretti

Reviewed by: Appearance and Explanation: Phenomenal Explanationism in Epistemology by Kevin McCain and Luca Moretti Caleb Estep McCAIN, Kevin and Luca Moretti. Appearance and Explanation: Phenomenal Explanationism in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. iv + 195 pp. Cloth, $70.00 Since its beginning, phenomenal conservatism (PC) has grown rapidly in popularity as a theory of epistemic justification. In Appearance and Explanation, McCain and Moretti develop out of PC a new theory of justification that they call phenomenal explanationism (PE). Their goal is to integrate PC with explanationism—the view that epistemic justification comes from the best explanation—thereby creating PE as a hybrid theory. They ambitiously contend that PE captures the same basic intuitions as PC but is better equipped to handle epistemic phenomena as a whole, troubling objections to PC (and foundationalism in general), and skeptical [End Page 354] arguments. The book is comprised of seven chapters. This review will emphasize the first four. In chapter 1, the authors discuss what PC is and its merits. PC is the idea that "we should grant things to be the way they appear [or seem] to be, unless we have reason to doubt" our seemings. They point out some of the benefits of PC as perceived by its followers: It "provide[s] widespread epistemic practices with a rationale," "it offers a unified account of non-inferential justification for beliefs of very different types," "it constitutes the basis of fallible foundationalism," and has a strong "antiskeptical bite." In chapter 2, McCain and Moretti argue that PC is not sufficient to account even for noninferential justification. First, they argue, PC gives an insufficient explanation of the no-defeater condition. The no-defeater condition is the "unless we have reason to doubt" clause built into PC. PC does not explain why or how S's reason to doubt "interacts with S's seeming that e in such a way as to diminish S's non-inferential justification for believing p." Second, if the power of seemings to justify comes from the seemings themselves, then the seemings become unstable once the subject becomes aware of them. The upshot of this is that if seemings are sufficient for justification, then some beliefs that should not be justified would have justification. In chapter 3, the authors begin to elaborate on their view. The authors distinguish between mere seemings, paired appearances, and presentational appearances to show how appearances can have varying degrees of justificatory power. Seemings and appearances are used in a roughly synonymous way. Mere seemings are lacking in both sensations and presentational phenomenology, hence they provide a very weak form of justification. Paired appearances have sensations but not presentational phenomenology. They have greater justificatory strength than mere seemings but less strength than presentational appearances. Presentational appearances produce the strongest justification and include both sensations and presentational phenomenology. The big payoff from these distinctions is that they show how different appearances can produce varying strengths of justification. In chapter 4, Moretti and McCain first outline their version of explanationism, which is evidentialist in character. It is as follows: "Believing p is justified for S at t if and only if at t: (1). S has total evidence, E; (2). either (i) p is the best (sufficiently good) explanation of e (where e is a subset of E), or (ii) p is an explanatory consequence of the best (sufficiently good) explanation of e (where p is such an explanatory consequence if and only if the relevant explanation of e would provide an explanation of p's truth that is significantly better than the explanation it would provide of ~ p's truth); (3). it is not the case that p fails to satisfy (i) and (ii) with respect to e because of the additional evidence included in E." [End Page 355] Next, the authors merge explanationism with PC as understood through the threefold division of appearances given in chapter 3. The result is that appearances or seemings are necessary and sufficient for a subject to have evidence, but the subject is justified in believing some proposition p only because p is the best explanation of the evidence. Appearances contribute to epistemic justification because as evidence they regulate the capacity...

A Theory of Epistemic Justification Based on Cause and Reason

A Theory of Epistemic Justification Based on Cause and Reason

Justification by acquaintance

While there is no shortage of philosophical literature discussing knowledge by acquaintance, there is a surprising dearth of work about theories of epistemic justification based on direct acquaintance. This paper explores a basic framework for a thoroughly general account of epistemic justification by acquaintance. I argue that this approach to epistemic justification satisfies two importance aspects (objective and subjective) of justification. After sketching how the acquaintance approach can meet both objective and subjective aspects for epistemic justification, I will outline how this general account of justification by acquaintance can be applied to the analysis of justification for many types of beliefs (e.g., non-inferential, inferential, a priori, empirical justification, etc.). Finally, some of the objections to the acquaintance approach will be considered and answered.

Can Infinitists Handle the Finite Mind Objection and the Distinction Objection?

This paper examines two objections to the infinitist theory of epistemic justification, namely “the finite mind objection” and “the distinction objection.” It criticizes Peter Klein’s response to the distinction objection and offers a more plausible response. It is then argued that this response is incompatible with Klein’s response to the finite mind objection. Infinitists, it would seem, cannot handle both objections when taken together.

Four Ways in Which Theories of Belief Revision Could Benefit from Theories of Epistemic Justification

Belief revision theories aim to model the dynamics of epistemic states. Besides beliefs, epistemic states comprise most importantly justificational structures. Typically, belief revision theories, however, model the dynamics of beliefs while neglecting justificational structures over and above logical relations. Despite some awareness that this approach is problematic, how devastating the consequences of this neglect are has not yet been fully grasped. In this paper, I argue that taking justificational structures into account could solve four well-known problems of belief revision.

What should we believe about the future?

This paper discusses the ability of explanationist theories of epistemic justification to account for the justification we have for holding beliefs about the future. McCain’s explanationist account of the relation of evidential support is supposedly in a better position than other theories of this type to correctly handle cases involving beliefs about the future. However, the results delivered by this account have been questioned by Byerly and Martin. This paper argues that McCain’s account is, in fact, able to deliver plausible results in cases involving such beliefs and that explanationism, if properly articulated, is illuminating with respect to the justification we have for holding such beliefs, as it manages to correctly distinguish evidence that only supports believing probabilistic claims about the future from evidence that is sufficient to believe that a particular event will happen.

Naturalism and Educational Administration: New directions

The purpose of this paper is to outline some new developments in a mature research program that sees administrative theory as cohering with natural science and uses a coherence theory of epistemic justification to shape the content and structure of administrative theory. Three main developments are discussed. First, the paper shows how to deal with the evaluation of theories (of, say, leadership) where there is a demand that a theory needs to be context relevant, but also comprehensive. The solution is to allow context to determine the scope of comprehensiveness. Second, the paper develops an argument structure employing a coherentist epistemology for how ethical claims can be incorporated into administrative theories. Finally, the paper, drawing on research in neuroscience, argues for the relevance of emotion in rational decision-making. Contrary to the belief that emotion compromises rationality, the paper argues that it is essential for rationality.

Justification is potential knowledge

This paper will articulate and defend a novel theory of epistemic justification; I characterize my view as the thesis that justification is potential knowledge (JPK). My project is an instance of the ‘knowledge-first’ programme, championed especially by Timothy Williamson. So I begin with a brief recapitulation of that programme.

Problem of Foundationalism as a Theory of Epistemic Justification

Problem of Foundationalism as a Theory of Epistemic Justification

The Gettier Illusion, the Tripartite Analysis, and the Divorce Thesis

Stephen Hetherington has defended the tripartite analysis of knowledge(Hetherington in Philos Q 48:453–469, 1998; J Philos 96:565–587, 1999; J Philos Res 26:307–324, 2001a; Good knowledge, bad knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001b). His defence has recently come under attack(Madison in Australas JPhilos 89(1):47–58, 2011; Turri in Synthese 183(3):247–259, 2012). I critically evaluate those attacks as well as Hetherington’s newest formulation of his defence (Hetherington in Philosophia 40(3):539–547, 2012b; How to know: A practicalist conception of knowledge, Wiley, Oxford, 2011a; Ratio 24:176–191, 2011b; Synthese 188:217–230, 2012a). I argue that his newest formulation is vulnerable to a modified version of Madison’s and Turri’s objection. However, I argue that Hetherington’s considerations lend support to a different, though also radical, thesis which can meet the objection. This thesis is what I call the Divorce thesis: the theory of epistemic justification is importantly independent of the theory of knowledge.

Liberalismo político: moral, no epistemológico

El presente ensayo constituye una respuesta crítica a «Liberalismo político, justificación pública y verdad» de M. Garreta Leclercq. Garreta Leclercq sostiene que la teoría de la justificación epistémica tradicional es conceptualmente irreconciliable con el liberalismo político rawlsiano. Asimismo, Garreta Leclercq también mantiene que la concepción de la justificación política de Rawls sí satisfaría los estándares liberal-políticos pero que sería deficiente por otras razones. Por esta cuestión, Garreta Leclercq concluye que Rawls no desarrolla una justificación adecuada del núcleo conceptual del liberalismo político. Por mi parte, considero que en Political Liberalism, Rawls da cuenta de la neutralidad liberal sobre la base de razones morales antes que epistemológicas. Por esta razón, los argumentos esgrimidos por Garreta Leclercq no ofrecen elementos de juicio suficientes para afirmar que Rawls introduce el núcleo de ideas característico del liberalismo político de modo inadecuado.

Proper function and defeating experiences

Jonathan Kvanvig has argued that what he terms “doxastic” theories of epistemic justification fail to account for certain epistemic features having to do with evidence. I’m going to give an argument roughly along these lines, but I’m going to focus specifically on proper function theories of justification or warrant. In particular, I’ll focus on Michael Bergmann’s recent proper function account of justification, though the argument applies also to Alvin Plantinga’s proper function account of warrant. The epistemic features I’m concerned about are experiences that should generate a believed defeater but don’t. I’ll argue that proper functionalism as it stands cannot account for the epistemic effects of these defeating experiences—or, at least, that it can only do so by embracing a deeply implausible view of our cognitive faculties. I’ll conclude by arguing that the only plausible option Bergmann has for modifying his theory undercuts the consideration that motivates proper functionalism in the first place.

Las variedades de fundacionismo y antifundacionismo ético: un mapa

In his book Vertigos argumentales, Carlos Pereda proposes a classification of foundationalist and anti-foundationalist theories of epistemic justification and suggests that something similar can be done about practical justification. Here I develop a classification of theories of moral justification in the same terms. Finally, I analyze how what Pereda calls a multi-foundationalist theory of moral justification would be like.

Reflective equilibrium and underdetermination in epistemology

The basic aim of Alvin Goldman’s approach to epistemology, and the tradition it represents, is naturalistic; that is, epistemological theories in this tradition aim to identify the naturalistic, nonnormative criteria on which justified belief supervenes (Goldman, 1986; Markie, 1997). The basic method of Goldman’s epistemology, and the tradition it represents, is the reflective equilibrium test; that is, epistemological theories in this tradition are tested against our intuitions about cases of justified and unjustified belief (Goldman, 1986; Markie, 1997). I will argue that the prospect of having to reject their standard methodology is one epistemologists have to take very seriously; and I will do this by arguing that some current rival theories of epistemic justification are in fact in reflective equilibrium with our intuitions about cases of justified and unjustified belief. That is, I will argue that intuition underdetermines theory choice in epistemology, in much the way that observation underdetermines theory choices in empirical sciences. If reflective equilibrium leads to the underdetermination problem I say it leads to, then it cannot satisfy the aims of contemporary epistemology, and so cannot serve as its standard methodology.

Consciousness, Experience, and Justification

A belief must have justification if it is to count as knowledge. And it is a commonplace thought that in certain circumstances experiences can serve as justifications for beliefs. Moreover, many have thought that there is something distinctive about the wayin which experiences justify beliefs, and that there is something distinctive about experiences which accounts for the distinctive way in which they justify beliefs. In this paper, I seek to elucidate views about experience and justification that can make sense of these thoughts and that can show us why so many have been attracted to them.I think it is important to try to make sense of these thoughts concerning the justificatory role of experiences, for I suspect that we are losing the ability to see why philosophers have traditionally been attracted to such thoughts. Coherentism and reliabilism, perhaps the two most currently popular theories of epistemic justification, appear simply to reject the idea that experiences can justify beliefs.

What Does the Generality Problem Show?

Richard Feldman and Earl Conee advance the following argument: P1. Process Reliabilism is tenable only if it can provide a solution to the Generality Problem. P2. No solution to the Generality Problem exists. C. Process Reliabilism is untenable. I argue that this argument is unsound. Premise one is false; it depends on further internalist premises that the proponent of Process Reliabilism, a paradigmatically externalist theory of epistemic justification, can reject.

DEONTIC VS. NONDEONTIC CONCEPTIONS OF EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION

Theories of epistemic justification are usually described as belonging to either deontological or nondeontological categories of justification with the former construing the concept of justification as involving the fulfillment of epistemic duty. Despite being the dominant view among traditional epistemologists, the deontological conception has been subjected to severe criticisms in the current literature for failing, among others, to do justice to the (alleged) truth-conducive character of epistemic justification. In this paper I set out to show that there is something deeply unsatisfying about the way these different conceptions of justification are usually introduced and contrasted with each other leaving it unclear just what it is that renders a particular conception deontological. In particular I look at Alston's treatment of the issue, and show that his reasons for rejecting the deontological conception involve question-begging assumptions demonstrating, at best, the possibility of its divergence from truth-conductive justification. Far from being able to settle the issue one way or another, the arguments, I shall suggest actually seem to show some sort of tolerant pluralism in justification theory to be a live option.

Chisholmian Foundationalism and the Naturalization of Epistemology

El reciente proyecto de naturalización de la epistemología ha producido gran cantidad de discusiones teóricas, muchas de las cuales (Goldman, Kornblith) se esfuerzan por aludir a la investigación realizada en las ciencias cognoscitivas con el fin de ayudarnos en nuestra teorización epistémica. Utilizando tres vías principales de argumentación, propongo que examinemos un tipo de fundacionismo clásico (el de Chisholm) en tanto que paradigma de una teoría de la justificación epistémica no naturalizada y concluir a partir de tal examen que ya no hay obstáculos para construir una teoría naturalizada de la justificación epistémica que combine de manera verosímil elementos del coherentismo con elementos de las ciencias cognoscitivas. La primera vía de argumentación se centra en la supuesta relación entre fundacionismo y confiabilismo, y nos pide que notemos que los defectos del fundacionismo son similares a los del confiabilismo y giran en torno de la noción de proceso cognoscitivo privilegiado. La segunda vía de argumentación nos pide reconocer que ciertos tipos de teorías de la justificación epistémica son intuitivamente más naturalizadas (las teorías coherentistas), y la tercera vía de argumentación nos propone imaginar una teoría naturalizada de la coherencia cuyo conjunto justificatorio descansa en un modelo descriptivamente exacto del proceso de justificación epistémico y que elimina algunas de las preocupaciones de los teóricos (por ejemplo Cornman) que han criticado al coherentismo. La conclusión general del artículo es que la teoría de la justificación epistémica puede y debería ser naturalizada, y que el examen de una teoría no naturalizada paradigmática nos indica la dirección correcta. [Traducción: Héctor Islas]

The deontological conception of epistemic justification and doxastic voluntarism

According to the deontological conception of epistemic justification as endorsed by most traditional epistemologists, one is justified in holding a belief if and only if one is in the clear, or epistemically responsible, in holding the belief. William Alston criticizes this conception and any theory of epistemic justification based on this conception. The crucial disability that Alston attaches to the deontological conception is doxastic voluntarism.

Double-Aspect Foundherentism: A New Theory of Empirical Justification

I make no apology for my allegiance to the Neologistic Typographical school of philosophy. I could, I admit, wish my new terminology more euphonious; but I hope its ugliness may be excused for the sake of the way it wears its sense on its sleeve. Foundationalism and coherentism are not exhaustive of possible styles of theory of epistemic justification. This is just as well, for neither will do. Coherentism cannot allow the relevance of experience to empirical justification; foundationalism can allow it only by way of the thesis that there are some beliefs which are justified exclusively by experience and not at all by the support of other beliefs, and which constitute the ultimate grounds of all other justified beliefs. Foundherentism is an intermediate theory which (unlike coherentism) allows the relevance of experience but (unlike experientialist foundationalism) requires neither privileged beliefs justified exclusively by experience nor an essentially one-directional notion of evidential support.' Like foundationalist theories of an experientialist stripe, foundherentism faces the objection that, since there can be only causal and not logical relations between a subject's experiences and his beliefs, experience cannot be relevant to justification. The objection rests on the false assumption that justification is a purely logical concept.2 The foundherentist theory developed will be a double-aspect theory, combining causal and evaluative elements. I make no apology for doing epistemology, nor for doing it by way of an investigation of the concept of justification. It is held in some quarters that the issues of the epistemological tradition are misconceived, and should be abandoned or replaced.3 This fashionable cynicism has been encouraged by a