Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:24:15.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Competing Practices Argument and Self-Defeat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Todd Stewart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Andy believes that p because his tarot cards indicate that p. Betty believes that ∼p because her crystal ball reveals that ∼p. If Andy and Betty know that they disagree, and disagree because they engage in different practices, is Andy's belief that p rational? The answer depends in part on whether Andy has good reasons to think that reading tarot cards is reliable about the topic while reading crystal balls is not. If a person has good reasons to believe that practice P1 is reliable while a competing practice P2 is not, then it is not irrational to form beliefs by engaging in P1. What if a person does not have good reasons to think that one practice is reliable about a topic while competing practices are not, though? In such cases, would Andy's awareness of the existence of competing practices, on its own, be enough to render his belief that p irrational?

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 2005 , pp. 13 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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

Alston, William P. (1986). Epistemic Circularity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47(1).Google Scholar
Alston, William P. (1991). Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Alston, William P. (1993). The Reliability of Sense Perception. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (forthcoming). Epistemic Circularity: Malignant and Benign. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Christensen, David (manuscript). Epistemology of Disagreement: the Good News.Google Scholar
Cling, Andrew (2002). Justification-Affording Circular Arguments. Philosophical Studies 111(3): 251–275.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stewart (2002). Basic Knowledge and The Problem of Easy Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65(2): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John (1986). A Defense of “Self-Defeating” Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64: 213–216.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2005). The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. Oxford Studies in Philosophy 1.Google Scholar
Lammenranta, Markus (1996). Reliabilism and Circularity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56(1): 111–124.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot (1981). Revisability, A Priori Truth, and Evolution. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Todd (manuscript). When is an Argument Epistemically Circular?Google Scholar
Van, Inwagen Peter (1995). Non Est Hick. In (1995) The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, ed. Señor, Thomas. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan (2000). Reliabilism Leveled. Journal of Philosophy 97: 602–23.Google Scholar
Wainwright, William (1995). Religious Language, Religious Experience, and Religious Pluralism. In (1995) The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, ed. Señor, Thomas. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar