Reconsidering Closure, Underdetermination, and Infallibilism

Grazer Philosophische Studien 80 (1):221-234 (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Anthony Brueckner argues for a strong connection between the closure and the underdetermination argument for scepticism. Moreover, he claims that both arguments rest on infallibilism: In order to motivate the premises of the arguments, the sceptic has to refer to an infallibility principle. If this were true, fallibilists would be right in not taking the problems posed by these sceptical arguments seriously. As many epistemologists are sympathetic to fallibilism, this would be a very interesting result. However, in this paper I will argue that Brueckner’s claims are wrong: The closure and the underdetermination argument are not as closely related as he assumes and neither rests on infallibilism. Thus even a fallibilist should take these arguments to raise serious problems that must be dealt with somehow.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BRIRCU
Upload history
Archival date: 2011-01-30
View other versions
Added to PP index
2011-01-30

Total views
1,156 ( #3,018 of 55,935 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #12,560 of 55,935 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.