Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:22:57.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflective Access, Closure, and Epistemological Disjunctivism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Giada Fratantonio
Giada Fratantonio*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I consider the so-called Access Problem for Duncan Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism (2012). After reconstructing Pritchard's own response to the Access Problem, I argue that in order to assess whether Pritchard's response is a satisfying one, we first need an account of the notion of ‘Reflective Access’ that underpins Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism. I provide three interpretations of the notion of Reflective Access: a metaphysical interpretation, a folk interpretation, and an epistemic interpretation. I argue that none of these three interpretations comes without problems. I conclude that, until we have a clear and unproblematic account of Reflective Access, the Access Problem remains a challenge for Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism.

Keywords

Epistemological DisjunctivismAccess ProblemExternalism/InternalismEpistemic Closure PrincipleReflective AccessMcKinsey-paradox
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 555 - 575
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Ashton, N.A. (2015). ‘Undercutting Underdetermination-Based Scepticism.’ Theoria 81(4), 333–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. (1998). ‘What the Externalist Can Know ‘A Priori’.’ Philosophical Issues 9, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. (1995). ‘The Incompatibility of Anti-Individualism and Privileged Access.’ Analysis 55(3), 149.Google Scholar
Brown, J. (2004). Anti-Individualism and Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, P. (2014). ‘Criteria for Indefeasible Knowledge: John McDowell and ‘Epistemological Disjunctivism’.’ Synthese 191(17), 4099–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fratantonio, G. (2018). ‘Armchair Access and Imagination.’ Dialectica 72(4), 525–47. doi: 10.1111/1746-8361.12249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fratantonio, G. (Forthcoming). ‘Evidential Internalism and Evidential Externalism.’ In Lasonen-Aarnio, M. and Littlejohn, C. (eds), The Routledge Handbook for the Philosophy of Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fratantonio, G. and McGlynn, G. (2018). ‘Reassessing the Case Against Evidential Externalism.’ In Mitova, V. (ed.), The Factive Turn in Epistemology, pp. 84–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghijsen, H. (2015). ‘The Basis Problem for Epistemological Disjunctivism Revisited.’ Erkenntnis 80(6), 1147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2014). ‘Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism: How Right? How Radical? How Satisfying?’ Philosophical Quarterly 64(254), 115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2005). ‘The Case for Closure.’ In Sosa, E. and Steup, M. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 26–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kallestrup, J. (2010). ‘Recent Work on McKinsey's Paradox.’ Analysis 71, 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, T. (2013). ‘Skeptical Scenarios Are Not Error-Possibilities.’ Erkenntnis 78, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, T. (2015). ‘Epistemological Disjunctivism's Genuine Access Problem.’ Theoria 81(4), 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2011). ‘Armchair Access and Evidence.’ Synthese 179(3), 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, M. (1991). ‘Anti-Individualism and Privileged Access.’ Analysis 51(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey, M. (2002). ‘Forms of Externalism and Privileged Access.’ Philosophical Perspectives 16(s16), 199–224.Google Scholar
McKinsey, M. (2007). ‘Externalism and Privileged Access are Inconsistent.’ In McLaughlin, B. and Cohen, J. (eds), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nuccetelli, S. (ed.) (2003). New Essays on Semantic Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015). ‘Epistemic Dependence.’ Philosophical Perspectives 29(1), 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2016). Epistemic Angst: Radical Scepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). ‘The Meaning of Meaning.’ Minnesota Studies in The Philosophy of Science 7, 131–93.Google Scholar
Ranalli, C. (2014). ‘Luck, Propositional Perception, and the Entailment Thesis.’ Synthese, 191(6), 1223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, S. (1998). ‘Privileged Access to the World.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, 523–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silins, N. (2005). ‘Deception and Evidence.’ Philosophical Perspectives 19, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zalabardo, J. (2015). ‘Epistemic Disjunctivism and the Evidential Problem.’ Analysis 75(4), 615–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar