DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemology: a Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge/Robert Audi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemology: a Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge/Robert Audi EPISTEMOLOGY ‘A state-of-the-art introduction to epistemology by one of the leading figures in the field… It would be difficult to imagine a better way to introduce students to epistemology.’ William P.Alston, Syracuse University ‘No less than one would expect from a first-rate epistemologist who is also a master expositor: lucid, comprehensive, well-structured, and excellently informed both by the tradition and by recent developments. A superb introduction.’ Ernest Sosa, Brown University ‘This is a massively impressive book, introducing the reader to virtually all the main areas of epistemology. Robert Audi’s text is lucid and highly readable, while not shirking the considerable complexities of his subject matter… This book will be an invaluable resource for intermediate and advanced undergraduates, and for starting graduates, and will be of considerable interest to professional colleagues also.’ Elizabeth Fricker, University of Oxford ‘Easily among the best and most comprehensive introductions to epistemology. It covers a wide variety of important topics in an accessible, clear and stimulating style. Audi considers a variety of positions sympathetically and fairly, while defending his favored solutions. This is precisely what one wants in a philosophy text.’ Noah Lemos, DePauw University ‘Very good coverage of the major problems of epistemology.’ Jonathan Kvanvig, Texas A & M University Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is concerned with how we know what we do, what justifies us in believing what we do, and what standards of evidence we should use in seeking truths about the world and human experience. This comprehensive book introduces the concepts and theories central for understanding knowledge. It aims to reach students who have already done an introductory philosophy course and general readers in epistemology at any level. Robert Audi’s approach is new and exciting, drawing the reader into the rich and fascinating subfields and theories of the subject in a natural way, ii guided by key concrete examples. Major topics include perception and reflection as grounds of knowledge, and the nature, structure, and varieties of knowledge. Also considered are the character and scope of knowledge in the crucial realms of ethics, science and religion. Robert Audi is the Charles J.Mach Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. He is internationally recognized as one of the leading authors in the field of epistemology. His books include The Structure of Justification (Cambridge University Press, 1993), Action, Intention, and Reason (Cornell University Press, 1993) and Moral Knowledge and Ethical Character (Oxford University Press, 1997). Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy Series Editor: Paul K.Moser Loyola University of Chicago This innovative, well-structured series is for students who have already done an introductory course in philosophy and others interested in the topic. Each book introduces a core general subject in contemporary philosophy and offers students an accessible but substantial transition from introductory to higher-level college work in that subject. The series is accessible to nonspecialists and each book clearly motivates and expounds the problems and positions introduced. An orienting chapter briefly introduces its topic and reminds readers of any crucial material they need to have retained from a typical introductory course. Considerable attention is given to explaining the central philosophical problems of a subject and the main competing solutions and arguments for those solutions. The primary aim is to educate students in the main problems, positions and arguments of contemporary philosophy rather than to convince them of a single position. The initial eight central books in the series are written by experienced authors and teachers and treat topics essential to a well- rounded philosophy curriculum. Epistemology Robert Audi Ethics Harry Gensler Metaphysics Michael J.Loux The Philosophy of Art Noel Carroll The Philosophy of Language William G.Lycan The Philosophy of Mind John Heil The Philosophy of Religion Keith E.Yandell The Philosophy of Science Alexander Rosenberg EPISTEMOLOGY A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge Robert Audi London and New York To Malou First published in 1998 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Reprinted 1998, 1999 © 1998 Robert Audi All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Audi, Robert Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge/Robert Audi. (Routledge contemporary introductions to philosophy; 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Knowledge, Theory of. I. Title. II. Series. BD161.A783 1998 121–dc21 97–11598 ISBN 0-203-98210-X Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-415-13042-5 (hbk) 0-415-13043-3 (pbk) Contents Preface xi Acknowledgments xiv Introduction 1 Part One: Sources of justification, knowledge, and truth 11 Chapter 1: Perception 12 The elements and basic kinds of perception 14 Seeing and believing 18 Some commonsense views of perception 27 The theory of appearing 29 Sense-datum theories of perception 30 Adverbial theories of perception 36 Adverbial and sense-datum theories of sensory 38 experience Phenomenalism 40 Perception and the senses 44 Chapter 2: Memory 53 Memory and the past 54 The causal basis of memory beliefs 56 Theories of memory 57 Remembering, recalling, and imaging 64 The epistemological centrality of memory 66 Chapter 3: Consciousness 72 Two basic kinds of mental properties 73 viii Introspection and inward vision 75 Some theories of introspective consciousness 76 Consciousness and privileged access 80 Introspective consciousness as a source of justification 85 and knowledge Chapter 4: Reason 91 Self-evident truths of reason 92 The classical view of the truths of reason 94 The empiricist view of the truths of reason 102 The conventionalist view of the truths of reason 107 Some difficulties and strengths of the classical view 111 Chapter 5: Testimony 128 Formal and informal testimony 129 The psychology of testimony 130 The epistemology of testimony 134 The indispensability of testimonial grounds 139 Part Two: The structure and growth of justification and knowledge 148 Chapter 6: Inference and the extension of knowledge 149 The process, content, and structure of inference 150 Inference and the growth of knowledge 155 Source conditions and transmission conditions 158 The inferential transmission of justification and 160 knowledge Memorial preservation of inferential justification and 169 inferential knowledge Chapter 7: The architecture of knowledge 174 Inferential chains and the structure of belief 176 The epistemic regress problem 179 The epistemic regress argument 184 Foundationalism and coherentism 185 ix Holistic coherentism 186 The nature of coherence 189 Coherence, reason, and experience 192 Coherence and second-order justification 198 Moderate foundationalism 201 Part The nature and scope of justification and knowledge 208 Three: Chapter 8: The Analysis of Knowledge 209 Knowledge and justified true belief 210 Knowledge as the right kind of justified true belief 212 Naturalistic accounts of the concept of knowledge 217 Problems for reliability theories 220 Knowledge and justification 225 Internalism and externalism 227 Justification and truth 234 Concluding proposals 239 Chapter 9: Scientific, moral, and religious knowledge 245 Scientific knowledge 246 Moral knowledge 255 Religious knowledge 265 Chapter Skepticism 276 10: The possibility of pervasive error 277 Skepticism generalized 281 The egocentric predicament 286 Fallibility 287 Uncertainty 290 Deducibility, evidential transmission, and induction 295 The authority of knowledge and the cogency of its 298 grounds x Refutation and rebuttal 301 Prospects for a positive defense of common sense 303 Skepticism and common sense 308 Conclusion 313 Short annotated bibliography of books in 322 epistemology Index 329 Preface This book is a wide-ranging introduction to epistemology, conceived as the theory of knowledge and justification. It presupposes no special background in philosophy and is meant to be fully understandable to any generally educated, careful reader, but for students it is most appropriately studied after completing at least one more general course in philosophy. The main focus is the body of concepts, theories, and problems central in understanding knowledge and justification. Historically, justification— sometimes under such names as ‘reason to believe’, ‘evidence’, and ‘warrant’—has been as important in epistemology as knowledge itself. This is surely so at present. In many parts of the book, justification and knowledge are discussed separately; but they are also interconnected at many points. The book is not historically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giving up the Enkratic Principle
    Giving Up the Enkratic Principle (forthcoming in Logos and Episteme) The Enkratic Principle enjoys something of a protected status as a requirement of rationality. I argue that this status is undeserved, at least in the epistemic domain. Compliance with the principle should not be thought of as a requirement of epistemic rationality, but rather as defeasible indication of epistemic blamelessness. To show this, I present the Puzzle of Inconsistent Requirements, and argue that the best way to solve this puzzle is to distinguish two kinds of epistemic evaluation – requirement and appraisal. This allows us to solve the puzzle while accommodating traditional motivations for thinking of the Enkratic Principle as a requirement of rationality. Keywords: Enkratic Principle; coherence; evidence; rationality 1. The Enkratic Principle The Enkratic Principle demands coherence. In the epistemic domain, it demands coherence between the agent’s beliefs about which epistemic attitudes she ought to have, and her first- order1 epistemic attitudes2. According to the orthodox view, the Enkratic Principle is a 1 ‘First-order’ is not the ideal term. By ‘first-order’ I mean epistemic attitudes whose content does not concern what we ought, rationally, to believe. 2 These could include believing, disbelieving, refraining from believing, suspending, or having a particular credence in a proposition. 1 requirement of epistemic rationality3. Reading O as “rationally required”, Φ as representing a doxastic attitude, and B as representing belief, the principle can be stated as follows: Enkratic Principle: O (BOΦ → Φ) The Enkratic Principle says that rationality requires either having the attitudes you believe you ought to have, or giving up the belief that you ought to have those attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for the Source of Epistemic Good Linda
    © Metaphilosophy LLC and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA METAPHILOSOPHY Vol. 34, Nos. 1/2, January 2003 0026–1068 THE SEARCH FOR THE SOURCE OF EPISTEMIC GOOD LINDA ZAGZEBSKI ABSTRACT: Knowledge has almost always been treated as good, better than mere true belief, but it is remarkably difficult to explain what it is about knowledge that makes it better. I call this “the value problem.” I have previously argued that most forms of reliabilism cannot handle the value problem. In this article I argue that the value problem is more general than a problem for reliabilism, infecting a host of different theories, including some that are internalist. An additional problem is that not all instances of true belief seem to be good on balance, so even if a given instance of knowing p is better than merely truly believing p, not all instances of knowing will be good enough to explain why knowledge has received so much attention in the history of philosophy. The article aims to answer two questions: (1) What makes knowing p better than merely truly believing p? The answer involves an exploration of the connection between believing and the agency of the knower. Knowing is an act in which the knower gets credit for achieving truth. (2) What makes some instances of knowing good enough to make the investigation of knowledge worthy of so much attention? The answer involves the connection between the good of believing truths of certain kinds and a good life.
    [Show full text]
  • Augustine on Knowledge
    Augustine on Knowledge Divine Illumination as an Argument Against Scepticism ANITA VAN DER BOS RMA: RELIGION & CULTURE Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Research Master Thesis s2217473, April 2017 FIRST SUPERVISOR: dr. M. Van Dijk SECOND SUPERVISOR: dr. dr. F.L. Roig Lanzillotta 1 2 Content Augustine on Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4 Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 The life of Saint Augustine ................................................................................................................... 9 The influence of the Contra Academicos .......................................................................................... 13 Note on the quotations ........................................................................................................................ 14 1. Scepticism ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's Assistance
    Philosophical Review The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's Assistance. by John E. Hare Review by: Linda Zagzebski The Philosophical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 291-293 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2998307 . Accessed: 21/03/2014 15:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Philosophical Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.15.14.53 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:30:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BOOK REVIEWS ThePhilosophical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2 (April 1999) THE MORAL GAP: KANTIANETHICS, HUMAN LIMITS, AND GOD'S AS- SISTANCE. ByJOHN E. HARE. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, Claren- don Press, 1996. Pp. x, 292. The titleof Hare's book refersto the gap between the demand that mo- ralityplaces on us and our natural capacity to live by it. Such a gap is paradoxical if we accept the "'ought' implies 'can"' principle. The solu- tion, Hare argues, is that the gap is filled by the Christian God.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Pardubice Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Truth in the Works of George Orwell Petr Škaroupka Diploma Thesis 2020
    University of Pardubice Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Truth in the Works of George Orwell Petr Škaroupka Diploma Thesis 2020 Prohlašuji: Tuto práci jsem vypracoval samostatně. Veškeré literární prameny a informace, které jsem v práci využil, jsou uvedeny v seznamu použité literatury. Byl jsem seznámen s tím, že se na moji práci vztahují práva a povinnosti vyplývající ze zákona č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů, zejména se skutečností, že Univerzita Pardubice má právo na uzavření licenční smlouvy o užití této práce jako školního díla podle § 60 odst. 1 autorského zákona, a s tím, že pokud dojde k užití této práce mnou nebo bude poskytnuta licence o užití jinému subjektu, je Univerzita Pardubice oprávněna ode mne požadovat přiměřený příspěvek na úhradu nákladů, které na vytvoření díla vynaložila, a to podle okolností až do jejich skutečné výše. Beru na vědomí, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č. 111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách a o změně a doplnění dalších zákonů (zákon o vysokých školách), ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a směrnicí Univerzity Pardubice č. 7/2019 Pravidla pro odevzdávání, zveřejňování a formální úpravu závěrečných prací, ve znění pozdějších dodatků, bude práce zveřejněna prostřednictvím Digitální knihovny Univerzity Pardubice. V Pardubicích dne 20.4.2020 Petr Škaroupka ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Mgr. Michal Kleprlík, Ph.D for accepting this diploma thesis and his valuable suggestions during the writing process. ANNOTATION This diploma thesis focuses on Orwell’s views on truth in his written works. With the aid of the contemporary philosophical literature, the notion of truth, as well as related epistemological and metaphysical issues and concepts, are described in the first part of the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Theory of Knowledge and Hegel's Criticism
    U.Ü. FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ Yıl: 2, Sayı: 2, 2000-2001 KANT’S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND HEGEL’S CRITICISM A. Kadir ÇÜÇEN* ABSTRACT Kant inquires into the possibility, sources, conditions and limits of knowledge in the tradition of modern philosophy. Before knowing God, being and reality, Kant, who aims to question what knowledge is, explains the content of pure reason. He formalates a theory of knowledge but his theory is neither a rationalist nor an empiricist theory of knowledge. He investigates the structure of knowledge, the possible conditions of experience and a priori concepts and categories of pure reason; so he makes a revolution like that of Copernicus . Hegel, who is one of proponents of the German idealism, criticizes the Kantian theory of knowledge for “wanting to know before one knows”. For Hegel, Kant’s a priori concepts and categories are meaningless and empty. He claims that the unity of subject and object has been explained in that of the “Absolute”. Therefore, the theory of knowledge goes beyond the dogmatism of the “thing-in- itself” and the foundations of mathematics and natural sciences; and reaches the domain of absolute knowledge. Hegel’s criticism of Kantian theory of knowledge opens new possibilities for the theory of knowledge in our age. ÖZET Kant’ın Bilgi Kuramı ve Hegel’in Eleştirisi Modern felsefe geleneği çerçevesinde Kant, bilginin imkânını, kaynağını, kapsamını ve ölçütlerini ele alarak, doğru bilginin sınırlarını irdelemiştir. Tanrı’yı, varlığı ve gerçekliği bilmeden önce, bilginin neliğini sorgulamayı kendine amaç edinen Kant, saf aklın içeriğini incelemiştir. Saf aklın a priori kavram ve kategorilerini, deneyin görüsünü ve bilgi yapısını veren, fakat ne usçu ne de deneyci * Uludag University, Faculty of Sciences and Letters, Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Address
    Empowering Philosophy Christia Mercer COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Presidential Address delivered at the one hundred sixteenth Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Philadelphia, PA, on January 10, 2020. The main goal of my presidential address in January 2020 was to show that philosophy’s past offers a means to empower its present. I hoped to encourage colleagues to make the philosophy we teach and practice more inclusive (both textually and topically) and to adopt a more public- facing engagement with our discipline. As I add these introductory remarks to my January lecture, it is June 2020 and the need to empower philosophy has never seemed more urgent. We’ve witnessed both the tragic death of George Floyd and the popular uprising of a diverse group of Americans in response to the ongoing violence against Black lives. Many white Americans—and many philosophers—have begun to realize that their inattentiveness to matters of diversity and inclusivity must now be seen as more than mere negligence. Recent demonstrations frequently contain signs that make the point succinctly: “Silence is violence.” A central claim of my January lecture was that philosophy’s status quo is no longer tenable. Even before the pandemic slashed university budgets and staff, our employers were cutting philosophy programs, enrollments were shrinking, and jobs were increasingly hard to find. Despite energetic attempts on the part of many of our colleagues to promote a more inclusive approach to our research and teaching, the depressing truth remains:
    [Show full text]
  • “Grounding and Omniscience” (PDF)
    Grounding and Omniscience Abstract I’m going to argue that omniscience is impossible and therefore that there is no God.1 The argument turns on the notion of grounding. After illustrating and clarifying that notion, I’ll start the argument in earnest. The first step will be to lay out five claims, one of which is the claim that there is an omniscient being, and the other four of which are claims about grounding. I’ll prove that these five claims are inconsistent. Then I’ll argue for the truth of each of them except the claim that there is an omniscient being. From these arguments it follows that there are no omniscient beings and thus that there is no God. §1. Stage Setting The best way to get a grip on the notion of grounding – or more exactly, for our purposes, the notion of partial grounding - is by considering examples. (By “partial grounding” I mean “at-least-partial grounding”, just as mereologists mean “at-least-part of” by “part of”.) The first example hearkens back to Plato’s Euthyphro. Suppose that a theorist claims that as a matter of metaphysical necessity, a given act is morally right if and only if it is approved of by God. At first blush at least, it is plausible that this theorist owes us an answer to following question: when acts are right, are they right because God approves of them, or does he approve of them because they are right? We all understand this question right away, right when we first hear it.
    [Show full text]
  • EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT and BENIGN Michael Bergmann
    EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT AND BENIGN Michael Bergmann Consider the following dialogue: Juror #1: You know that witness named Hank? I have doubts about his trustworthiness. Juror #2: Well perhaps this will help you. Yesterday I overheard Hank claiming to be a trustworthy witness. Juror #1: So Hank claimed to be trustworthy did he? Well, that settles it then. I’m now convinced that Hank is trustworthy. Is the belief of Juror #1 that Hank is a trustworthy witness justified? Most of us would be inclined to say it isn’t. Juror #1 begins by having some doubts about Hank’s trustworthiness, and then he comes to believe that Hank is trustworthy. The problem is that he arrives at this belief on the basis of Hank’s own testimony. That isn’t reasonable. You can’t sensibly come to trust a doubted witness on the basis of that very witness’s testimony on his own behalf.1 Now consider the following soliloquy: Doubter: I have some doubts about the trustworthiness of my senses. After all, for all I know, they are deceiving me. Let’s see ... Hey, wait a minute. They are trustworthy! I recall many occasions in the past when I was inclined to hold certain perceptual beliefs. On each of those occasions, the beliefs I formed were true. I know that because the people I was with confirmed to me that they were true. By inductive reasoning, I can safely conclude from those past cases that my senses are trustworthy. There we go. It feels good to have those doubts about my senses behind me.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 17, No. 2
    Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy Volume XVII · Number 2 April 2020 Articles 103 Social Reform in a Complex World Jacob Barrett 133 Freedom and Actual Interference Jonah Goldwater 159 Do We Have Reasons to Obey the Law? Edmund Tweedy Flanigan 198 The Ambitions of Consequentialism Brian McElwee Discussions 219 Error Theory, Unbelievability, and the Normative Objection Daniele Bruno 228 Does Initial Appropriation Create New Obligations? Jesse Spafford Journal of Ethics Social Philosophy http://www.jesp.org & TheJournal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (issn 1559-3061) is a peer-reviewed online journal in moral, social, political, and legal philosophy. The journal is founded on the principle of publisher-funded open access. There are no publication fees for authors, and public access to articles is free of charge and is available to all readers under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license. Funding for the journal has been made possible through the generous commitment of the Gould School of Law and the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences at the University of Southern California. TheJournal of Ethics and Social Philosophy aspires to be the leading venue for the best new work in the fields that it covers, and it is governed by a correspondingly high editorial standard. The journal welcomes submissions of articles in any of these and related fields of research. The journal is interested in work in the history of ethics that bears directly on topics of contemporary interest, but does not consider articles of purely historical interest. It is the view of the associate editors that the journal’s high standard does not preclude publishing work that is critical in nature, provided that it is constructive, well- argued, current, and of sufficiently general interest.
    [Show full text]
  • On Moral Understanding
    COMMENTTHE COLLEGE NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO 147 | MAY 2003 TOM WHIPPS On Moral Understanding DNA pioneers: The surviving members of the King’s team, who worked on the discovery of the structure of DNA 50 years ago, withDavid James Watson, K Levytheir Cambridge ‘rival’ at the time. From left Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, DNA at King’s: DepartmentJames Watson and of Maurice Philosophy Wilkins King’s College the continuing story University of London Prize for his contribution – and A day of celebrations their teams, but also to subse- quent generations of scientists at ver 600 guests attended a cant scientific discovery of the King’s. unique day of events celeb- 20th century,’ in the words of Four Nobel Laureates – Mau- Orating King’s role in the 50th Principal Professor Arthur Lucas, rice Wilkins, James Watson, Sid- anniversary of the discovery of the ‘and their research changed ney Altman and Tim Hunt – double helix structure of DNA on the world’. attended the event which was so 22 April. The day paid tribute not only to oversubscribed that the proceed- Scientists at King’s played a King’s DNA pioneers Rosalind ings were relayed by video link to fundamental role in this momen- Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – tous discovery – ‘the most signifi- who went onto win the Nobel continued on page 2 2 Funding news | 3 Peace Operations Review | 5 Widening participation | 8 25 years of Anglo-French law | 11 Margaret Atwood at King’s | 12 Susan Gibson wins Rosalind Franklin Award | 15 Focus: School of Law | 16 Research news | 18 Books | 19 KCLSU election results | 20 Arts abcdef U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N A C C O M M O D A T I O N O F F I C E ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION - FINDING SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy WARNING: Under no circumstances inshould the this University document be of taken London as providing legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquaintance and Assurance
    Philos Stud DOI 10.1007/s11098-011-9747-9 Acquaintance and assurance Nathan Ballantyne Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract I criticize Richard Fumerton’s fallibilist acquaintance theory of nonin- ferential justification. Keywords Acquaintance Á Noninferential justification Á Assurance Á Skepticism Á Regress Á Richard Fumerton Should the acquaintance theorist be committed to fallibilism or infallibilism? Richard Fumerton (2010) and Ted Poston (2010) have recently discussed that question. Poston has argued that there is trouble for the acquaintance theorist either way—the theory faces a dilemma—and Fumerton has responded to Poston by defending a fallibilist acquaintance theory of noninferential justification. Here, I shall offer a new objection to the theory Fumerton defends. Fumerton claims that ‘‘[w]hen everything that is constitutive of a thought’s being true is immediately before consciousness, there is nothing more that one could want or need to justify a belief’’ (2001, p. 14). ‘‘What more,’’ asks Fumerton, ‘‘could one want as an assurance of truth than the truth-maker before one’s mind?’’ (2006a, p. 189). Yet Fumerton also grants that false beliefs can enjoy noninferential justification. This admission, I’ll contend, brings trouble for the acquaintance theorist whenever she asks whether she has assurance for a belief. In what follows, I shall outline Fumerton’s notion of philosophical assurance (Sect. 1) before turning to state his account of noninferential justification (Sect. 2), describing how assurance is a critical motivation for the acquaintance theory. Then I will argue that if the acquaintance theorist endorses fallibilism, as Fumerton does, N. Ballantyne (&) Philosophy Department, Fordham University, Collins Hall 101, 441 E.
    [Show full text]