Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:47:25.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN EXPLANATORY CHALLENGE FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL DISJUNCTIVISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2017

Cameron Boult
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epistemological Disjunctivism is a view about paradigm cases of perceptual knowledge. Duncan Pritchard claims that it is particularly well suited to accounting for internalist and externalist intuitions. A number of authors have disputed this claim, arguing that there are problems for Pritchard's way with internalist intuitions. I share the worry. However, I don't think it has been expressed as effectively as it can be. My aim in this paper is to present a new way of formulating the worry, in terms of an “explanatory challenge”. The explanatory challenge is a simple, yet powerful and illuminating challenge for Epistemological Disjunctivism. It is illuminating in the sense that it shows us why Epistemological Disjunctivism must take on certain internalistically problematic commitments. A secondary aim of this paper is to examine whether the recently much-discussed distinction between justifications and excuses in epistemology can support an adequate response. I will argue that it cannot.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 141 - 153
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Boult, C. 2016. ‘Epistemic Normativity and the Justification-Excuse Distinction.’ Synthese, Online First. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1127-8.Google Scholar
Brogaard, B. 2010. ‘Disjunctivism.’ Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, A. and Logue, H. 2009. ‘Introduction.’ In Byrne, A. and Logue, H. (eds), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, pp. vii–xxix. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1984. ‘Justification and Truth.’ Philosophical Studies, 46: 279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 2004. Evidentialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsch, F. 2011. ‘The Diversity of Disjunctivism.’ European Journal of Philosophy, 19: 304–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, W. 2009. ‘Disjunctivism.’ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. 2011. ‘Warrant and Action.’ Synthese, 178: 529–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2006. ‘Access Externalism.’ Mind, 115: 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2010. ‘Reply to Moon.’ Mind, 119: 153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2013. The Norm of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S. 2016. ‘Comments on Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism.’ Journal of Philosophical Research, 41: 183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, D. 2016. ‘Cognitive Mobile Homes.’ Mind, Online First. doi: 10.1093/mind/fzv190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (eds) 2008. ‘Introduction: Varieties of Disjunctivism.’ In Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge, pp. 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. and Ghijsen, H. 2016. ‘Perceptual Justification: Factive Reasons and Fallible Virtues.’ InChienkuo, M., Slote, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Moral and Intellectual Virtues in Western and Chinese Philosophy, pp. 164–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2007. ‘Norms of Assertion.’ Noûs, 41: 594–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, C. Forthcoming. ‘A Plea for Epistemic Excuses.’ In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (eds), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Madison, B. J. C. 2014. ‘Epistemological Disjunctivism and the New Evil Demon.’ Acta Analytica, 29: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. and Pritchard, D. 2007. ‘McDowell and the New Evil Genius.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2006. ‘McDowellian Neo-Mooreanism.’ In Macpherson, F. and Haddock, A. (eds), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge, pp. 283–310. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2010. ‘Relevant Alternatives, Perceptual Knowledge, and Discrimination.’ Noûs, 44: 245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2011. ‘Epistemological Disjunctivism and the Basis Problem.’ Philosophical Issues, 21: 434–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2012. Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, J. 2001. ‘Highlights of Recent Epistemology.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52: 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silins, N. 2005. ‘Deception and Evidence.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithies, D. 2013. ‘Review of Duncan Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism.’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, A. 2015. ‘Normativity without Cartesian Privilege.’ Philosophical Issues, 25: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. 1962. ‘Freedom and Resentment.’ Proceedings of the British Academy, 48: 1–25.Google Scholar
Turri, J. Forthcoming. ‘The Radicalism of Truth-Insensitive Epistemology: Truth's Profound Effect on the Evaluation of Belief.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. Forthcoming. ‘Justifications, Excuses, and Sceptical Scenarios.’ In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (eds), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar