The logic of epistemic justification

Synthese 195 (9):3857-3875 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Theories of epistemic justification are commonly assessed by exploring their predictions about particular hypothetical cases – predictions as to whether justification is present or absent in this or that case. With a few exceptions, it is much less common for theories of epistemic justification to be assessed by exploring their predictions about logical principles. The exceptions are a handful of ‘closure’ principles, which have received a lot of attention, and which certain theories of justification are well known to invalidate. But these closure principles are only a small sample of the logical principles that we might consider. In this paper, I will outline four further logical principles that plausibly hold for justification and two which plausibly do not. While my primary aim is just to put these principles forward, I will use them to evaluate some different approaches to justification and (tentatively) conclude that a ‘normic’ theory of justification best captures its logic.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SMITLO-27
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-05-01
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Ceteris Paribus Conditionals and Comparative Normalcy.Martin Smith - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):97-121.
Evidence.Conee, Earl & Feldman, Richard

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Epistemic Logic Without Closure.Leuenberger, Stephan & Smith, Martin

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-05-01

Total views
250 ( #17,438 of 49,077 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
43 ( #15,788 of 49,077 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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