Epistemically self-defeating arguments and skepticism about intuition

Philosophical Studies 164 (3):579-589 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
An argument is epistemically self-defeating when either the truth of an argument’s conclusion or belief in an argument’s conclusion defeats one’s justification to believe at least one of that argument’s premises. Some extant defenses of the evidentiary value of intuition have invoked considerations of epistemic self-defeat in their defense. I argue that there is one kind of argument against intuition, an unreliability argument, which, even if epistemically self-defeating, can still imply that we are not justified in thinking intuition has evidentiary value.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SILESA
Revision history
First archival date: 2015-11-21
Latest version: 4 (2018-05-31)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Philosophical Papers.Lewis, David K.
Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.Weinberg, Jonathan M.; Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2012-02-02

Total views
1,715 ( #871 of 41,492 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
163 ( #2,381 of 41,492 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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