Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:00:54.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELIABILISM: HOLISTIC OR SIMPLE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2012

Jeffrey Dunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simple versions of Reliabilism about justification say that S's believing that p is justified if and only if the belief was produced by a belief-forming process that is reliable above some high threshold. Alvin Goldman, in Epistemology and Cognition, argues for a more complex version of the view according to which it is total epistemic systems that are assessed for reliability, rather than individual processes. Why prefer this more complex version of Reliabilism? Two reasons suggest themselves. First, it seems that the interaction of various processes of belief formation is often important. The more complex version appears to account for the interaction of processes. Second, one might doubt whether individual processes will have determinate truth-ratios. If not, the simple version of Reliabilism is a nonstarter. In this paper I argue that, despite these two apparent advantages, the complex version of Reliabilism is untenable. I conclude by arguing that the simple version is actually fine as it is.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 225 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Adler, J. 2005. ‘Reliabilist Justification (or Knowledge) as a Good Truth-Ratio.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 86: 445–58.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. 1988. ‘Revisability, Reliabilism, and A Priori Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 49: 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J. 2004. ‘Indicator Reliabilism.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69: 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 1998. ‘The Generality Problem for Reliabilism.’ Philosophical Studies, 89: 1–29.Google Scholar
Cruz, J. and Pollock, J. 2004. ‘The Chimerical Appeal of Epistemic Externalism.’ In Schantz, R. (ed.), The Externalist Challenge, pp. 125–42. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1979. ‘What is Justified Belief?.’ In Pappas, George (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, pp. 1–23. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1988. ‘Strong and Weak Justification.’ In Tomberlin, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2, Epistemology, pp. 51–69. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1999. ‘Internalism Exposed.’ Journal of Philosophy, 96: 271–93.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2008. ‘Immediate Justification and Process Reliabilism.’ In Smith, Quentin (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 63–82. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2009a. ‘Internalism, Externalism, and the Architecture of Justification.’ Journal of Philosophy, 106.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2009b. ‘Reliabilism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2009 edn), ed. Zalta, Edward N.: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/reliabilism/Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2010. ‘Epistemic Relativism and Reasonable Disagreement.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. and Olsson, E. 2009. ‘Reliabilism and the Value of Knowledge.’ In Pritchard, D. et al. (eds), Epistemic Value, pp. 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lammenranta, M. 1996. ‘Reliabilism and Circularity.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56: 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelian, K. 2010. ‘The Epistemology of Forgetting.’ Erkenntnis, 74: 399–424.Google Scholar