Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:11:28.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Skepticism and Internalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Halvor Nordby*
Affiliation:
Lillehammer University College, Faculty of Health and Social work, 2626Lillehammer, NORWAY

Extract

The skeptical Dream argument appeals to the possibility of dreaming. The skeptic holds that states of being awake are subjectively indistinguishable from possible dream states and that this means that we do not know that we are awake. This, the skeptic then claims, means that we have to accept that we do not have external world knowledge.

It is natural to assume that there must be a connection between the Dream argument and epistemic internalism, the view that a belief is justified for a given person if and only if the person has cognitive access to all the factors that are needed for the belief to be justified. The problem, the skeptic thinks, is that in order for my belief that I am awake to be justified I have to have cognitive access to something that establishes that I am awake. But according to the skeptic, even if I am awake, this is not something I have cognitive access to. However, the more precise connections between internalism and the skeptical argument are not so clear.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boghossian, P. 1994. ‘The Transparency of Mental Content.Philosophical Perspectives 8: 3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, L. 1980. ‘Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge.Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 5374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, L. 1992. ‘Externalism and Internalism.’ In A Companion to Epistemology, Sosa, E. and Dancy, J. eds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. 1994. ‘Skepticism and the Causal Theory of Reference.The Philosophical Quarterly 44: 213–22.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1979. ‘Individualism and the Mental.Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1982. ‘Other Bodies.’ In Thought and Object, Woodfield, A. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1990. ‘Frege on Sense and Linguistic Meaning.’ In The Analytical Tradition: Meaning, Thought and Knowledge, Bell, D. and Cooper, N. eds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. 1977. Theory of Knowledge. London: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. 1986. Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1968. ‘On Saying That.Synthese 19: 130–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. 1955. Meditations on First Philosophy. Edited and translated by Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T.. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Sceptical Problem.The Philosophical Review 104: 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1999. ‘Introduction.’ In Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader, ed. DeRose, K. & Warfield, T. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1981. ‘The Pragmatic Dimension of Knowledge.Philosophical Studies 40: 363–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. and Lepore, E. 1992. Holism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. 1996. ‘Externalism and Knowledge of Content.The Philosophical Review 105: 278310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. 1996. ‘Process Reliabilism and Cartesian Skepticism.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56: 567–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1997. ‘A Puzzle about Belief.’ In Meaning and Use, Margalit, A. ed. Dordrectht: D.Reidel.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game.Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1992. A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1998. Being Known. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pessin, H. and Goldberg, S. (eds) 1996. The Twin Earth Chronicles. London & New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, Truth and History. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. ‘The Meaning of Meaning.Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–93.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1996. ‘Introduction.’ In The Twin Earth Chronicles, Pessin, A. and Goldberg, S. eds. London & New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1953. ‘Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes.The Journal of Philosophy 53: 177187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1996. ‘Contextualist Solutions to Skepticism.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96: 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 1994. ‘Philosophical Skepticism and Epistemic Circularity.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 24: 263290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, B. 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, B. 1989. ‘Understanding Human Knowledge in General.’ In Knowledge and Skepticism, Clay, M. and Lehrer, K. eds. Boulder, CO & London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 1994. ‘Skepticism, ‘Externalism,’ and the Goal of Epistemology.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 24: 291307.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 1988. ‘Skepticism without Theory.Review of Metaphysics 41: 547–88.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1991. ‘Skepticism and Dreaming: Imploding the Demon.Mind 100: 87115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar