Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Foundations of Knowing.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1982 - Univ of Minnesota Press.
    _The Foundations of Knowing _ was first published in 1982. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. This collection of essays on the foundations of empirical knowledge brings together ten of Roderick M. Chisholm's most important papers in epistemology, three of them published for the first time, the others significantly revised and expanded for this edition. The essays in Part I constitute a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   76 citations  
  • Ascent and Assent?Peter D. Klein - 2004 - In John Greco (ed.), Ernest Sosa: And His Critics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology.Michael Williams - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
    In this exciting and original introduction to epistemology, Michael Williams explains and criticizes traditional philosophical theories of the nature, limits, methods, possibility, and value of knowing. All the main contemporary perspectives are explored and questioned, and the author's own theories put forward, making this new book essential reading for anyone, beginner or specialist, concerned with the philosophy of knowledge.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   158 citations  
  • (3 other versions)What is Justified Belief?Alvin I. Goldman - 1979 - In George Pappas (ed.), Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology. Boston: D. Reidel. pp. 1-25.
    The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of justified belief. What I have in mind is an explanatory theory, one that explains in a general way why certain beliefs are counted as justified and others as unjustified. Unlike some traditional approaches, I do not try to prescribe standards for justification that differ from, or improve upon, our ordinary standards. I merely try to explicate the ordinary standards, which are, I believe, quite different from those of many classical, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   911 citations  
  • (1 other version)Conclusive reasons.Fred I. Dretske - 1971 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49 (1):1-22.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   322 citations  
  • Infinitism and epistemic normativity.Adam C. Podlaskowski & Joshua A. Smith - 2011 - Synthese 178 (3):515-527.
    Klein’s account of epistemic justification, infinitism, supplies a novel solution to the regress problem. We argue that concentrating on the normative aspect of justification exposes a number of unpalatable consequences for infinitism, all of which warrant rejecting the position. As an intermediary step, we develop a stronger version of the ‘finite minds’ objection.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • There is immediate justification.James Pryor - 2013 - In Matthias Steup & John Turri (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell. pp. 181--202.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   182 citations  
  • Metaepistemology and Skepticism.Richard A. Fumerton - 1995 - Rowman & Littlefield.
    ... and Normative Epistemology The Distinction Between Metaepistemology and Normative Epistemology Although this terminology is relatively new, ...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   284 citations  
  • (2 other versions)A coherence theory of truth and knowledge.Donald Davidson - 1986 - In Ernest LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Cambridge: Blackwell. pp. 307-319.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   492 citations  
  • Choice and chance: an introduction to inductive logic.Brian Skyrms - 1975 - Encino, Calif.: Dickenson Pub. Co..
    Preface. I. BASICS OF LOGIC. Introduction. The Structure of Simple Statements. The Structure of Complex Statements. Simple and Complex Properties. Validity. 2. PROBABILITY AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC. Introduction. Arguments. Logic. Inductive versus Deductive Logic. Epistemic Probability. Probability and the Problems of Inductive Logic. 3. THE TRADITIONAL PROBLEM OF INDUCTION. Introduction. Hume’s Argument. The Inductive Justification of Induction. The Pragmatic Justification of Induction. Summary. IV. THE GOODMAN PARADOX AND THE NEW RIDDLE OF INDUCTION. Introduction. Regularities and Projection. The Goodman Paradox. The Goodman (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   68 citations  
  • Unnatural doubts: epistemological realism and the basis of scepticism.Michael Williams - 1991 - Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
    In Unnatural Doubts, Michael Williams constructs a masterly polemic against the very idea of epistemology, as traditionally conceived.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   147 citations  
  • The structure of empirical knowledge.Laurence BonJour - 1985 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    1 Knowledge and Justification This book is an investigation of one central problem which arises in the attempt to give a philosophical account of empirical ...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   857 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Human knowledge and the infinite regress of reasons.Peter D. Klein - 1999 - Philosophical Perspectives 13:297-325.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   123 citations  
  • When infinite regresses are not vicious.Peter Klein - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):718–729.
    I will argue for two main points. First, the regress imbedded in infinitism need not be subject to the Structural Objection; and second, the Structural Objection does not pose a real problem for any regress. I will not be arguing for the correctness of my proposal directly. That is, as will become apparent soon, my proposal rests on two principles of reasoning which together entail infinitism and I will not present my arguments for those principles here. The purpose of this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • On the regress argument for infinitism.John Turri - 2009 - Synthese 166 (1):157 - 163.
    This paper critically evaluates the regress argument for infinitism. The dialectic is essentially this. Peter Klein argues that only an infinitist can, without being dogmatic, enhance the credibility of a questioned non-evident proposition. In response, I demonstrate that a foundationalist can do this equally well. Furthermore, I explain how foundationalism can provide for infinite chains of justification. I conclude that the regress argument for infinitism should not convince us.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Elusive knowledge.David Lewis - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):549 – 567.
    David Lewis (1941-2001) was Class of 1943 University Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University. His contributions spanned philosophical logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, metaphysics, and epistemology. In On the Plurality of Worlds, he defended his challenging metaphysical position, "modal realism." He was also the author of the books Convention, Counterfactuals, Parts of Classes, and several volumes of collected papers.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1054 citations  
  • A proposed definition of propositional knowledge.Peter D. Klein - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (16):471-482.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  • The epistemic regress problem.Andrew D. Cling - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (3):401 - 421.
    The best extant statement of the epistemic regress problem makes assumptions that are too strong. An improved version assumes only that that reasons require support, that no proposition is supported only by endless regresses of reasons, and that some proposition is supported. These assumptions are individually plausible but jointly inconsistent. Attempts to explain support by means of unconceptualized sensations, contextually immunized propositions, endless regresses, and holistic coherence all require either additional reasons or an external condition on support that is arbitrary (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Is Klein an infinitist about doxastic justification?Michael Bergmann - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (1):19 - 24.
    This paper is a response to Peter Klein's "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Progress of Reasoning". After briefly discussing what Klein says about the requirement, for doxastic justification, that a belief be formed in the right way, I'll make the following three points: Klein's solution to the regress problem isn't an infinitist solution, Klein's position on doxastic justification faces a troubling dilemma, and Klein's objection to foundationalism fails.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Three arguments against foundationalism: arbitrariness, epistemic regress, and existential support.Daniel Howard-Snyder & E. J. Coffman - 2006 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):535-564.
    Foundationalism is false; after all, foundational beliefs are arbitrary, they do not solve the epistemic regress problem, and they cannot exist withoutother (justified) beliefs. Or so some people say. In this essay, we assess some arguments based on such claims, arguments suggested in recent work by Peter Klein and Ernest Sosa.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Elusive Knowledge.David Lewis - 1999 - In Keith DeRose & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Skepticism: a contemporary reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   420 citations  
  • Foundationalism and the Infinite Regress of ReasonsMetaepistemology and Skepticism. [REVIEW]Peter Klein & Richard Fumerton - 1998 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (4):919.
    In Metaepistemology and Skepticism (Rowman & Littlefield:\n1995), Richard Fumerton defends foundationalism. As part of\nthe defense he rejects infinitism--the view that holds that\nthe solution to the problem of the regress of justificatory\nreasons is that the reasons are infinitely many and\nnonrepeating. I examine some of those arguments and attempt\nto show that they are not really telling against (at least\nsome versions of) infinitism. Along the way I present some\nobjections to his account of inferential justification.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons.Peter D. Klein - 1999 - Noûs 33 (s13):297-325.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   95 citations  
  • Infinitism Regained.J. Peijnenburg - 2007 - Mind 116 (463):597-602.
    Consider the following process of epistemic justification: proposition $E_{0}$ is made probable by $E_{1}$ which in turn is made probable by $E_{2}$ , which is made probable by $E_{3}$ , and so on. Can this process go on indefinitely? Foundationalists, coherentists, and sceptics claim that it cannot. I argue that it can: there are many infinite regresses of probabilistic reasoning that can be completed. This leads to a new form of epistemic infinitism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Choice and chance.Brian Skyrms - 1966 - Belmont, Calif.,: Dickenson Pub. Co..
    This definitive survey of the hottest issues in inductive logic sets the stage for further classroom discussion.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   83 citations  
  • The trouble with infinitism.Andrew D. Cling - 2004 - Synthese 138 (1):101 - 123.
    One way to solve the epistemic regress problem would be to show that we can acquire justification by means of an infinite regress. This is infinitism. This view has not been popular, but Peter Klein has developed a sophisticated version of infinitism according to which all justified beliefs depend upon an infinite regress of reasons. Klein's argument for infinitism is unpersuasive, but he successfully responds to the most compelling extant objections to the view. A key component of his position is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (1 other version)Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology.Michael Williams - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):292-295.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   71 citations  
  • Against coherence: truth, probability, and justification.Erik J. Olsson - 2005 - New York: Oxford University Press.
    It is tempting to think that, if a person's beliefs are coherent, they are also likely to be true. This truth conduciveness claim is the cornerstone of the popular coherence theory of knowledge and justification. Erik Olsson's new book is the most extensive and detailed study of coherence and probable truth to date. Setting new standards of precision and clarity, Olsson argues that the value of coherence has been widely overestimated. Provocative and readable, Against Coherence will make stimulating reading for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   118 citations  
  • (1 other version)Conclusive Reasons.Fred I. Dretske - 2000 - In Sven Bernecker & Fred I. Dretske (eds.), Knowledge: readings in contemporary epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   169 citations  
  • (1 other version)Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism.Michael Williams - 1993 - Philosophy 68 (263):110-112.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   101 citations  
  • (1 other version)Problems of Knowledge. A Critical Introduction to Epistemology.Michael Williams - 2002 - Erkenntnis 57 (1):126-132.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  • Meta-epistemology and the varieties of epistemic infinitism.Scott F. Aikin - 2008 - Synthese 163 (2):175-185.
    I will assume here the defenses of epistemic infinitism are adequate and inquire as to the variety standpoints within the view. I will argue that infinitism has three varieties depending on the strength of demandingness of the infinitist requirement and the purity of its conception of epistemic justification, each of which I will term strong pure, strong impure, and weak impure infinitisms. Further, I will argue that impure infinitisms have the dialectical advantage.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • A Defense of Immediate Non-Inferential Justification.J. Pryor - 2013 - In Matthias Steup & John Turri (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Human knowledge and the infinite progress of reasoning.Peter Klein - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (1):1 - 17.
    The purpose of this paper is to explain how infinitism—the view that reasons are endless and non-repeating—solves the epistemic regress problem and to defend that solution against some objections. The first step is to explain what the epistemic regress problem is and, equally important, what it is not. Second, I will discuss the foundationalist and coherentist responses to the regress problem and offer some reasons for thinking that neither response can solve the problem, no matter how they are tweaked. Then, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   69 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Metaepistemology and Skepticism.Richard Fumerton - 1995 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 58 (4):905-906.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   267 citations  
  • Modest Infinitism.Jeremy Fantl - 2003 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33 (4):537 - 562.
    Modest Infinitism -/- Jeremy Fantl -/- Abstract -/- Infinitism, a theory of justification most recently developed and defended by Peter Klein, is the view that justification is a matter of having an infinite series of non-repeating reasons for a proposition. I argue that infinitism is preferable to other theories (like foundationalism) in that only infinitism can plausibly account for two important features of justification: 1) that it admits of degrees and 2) that a concept of complete justification makes sense.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • (2 other versions)A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge.Donald Davidson - 2000 - In Sven Bernecker & Fred I. Dretske (eds.), Knowledge: readings in contemporary epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   278 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Elusive Knowledge.David Lewis - 2000 - In Sven Bernecker & Fred I. Dretske (eds.), Knowledge: readings in contemporary epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   442 citations  
  • Who is Afraid of Epistemology’s Regress Problem?Scott F. Aikin - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191-217.
    What follows is a taxonomy of arguments that regresses of inferential justification are vicious. They fall out into four general classes: conceptual arguments from incompleteness, conceptual arguments from arbitrariness, ought-implies-can arguments from human quantitative incapacities, and ought-implies can arguments from human qualitative incapacities. They fail with a developed theory of "infinitism" consistent with valuational pluralism and modest epistemic foundationalism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Justified Belief And The Infinite Regress Argument.John N. Williams - 1981 - American Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1):85-88.
    The background to this paper is the question of how rational belief is possible in the light of the commonly presented infinite regress in reasons. The paper investigates the neglected question of whether this regress is vicious. I argue that given the genuine requirements of rational belief, The regress would require the rational believer to hold an infinity of beliefs, Which is impossible. The regress would not entail the rational believer holding an infinitely complex belief, Which, Admittedly, Would be logically (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • How to be an infinitist about doxastic justification.Peter Klein - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (1):25 - 29.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Metaepistemology and Skepticism.Richard Fumerton - 1997 - Mind 106 (424):782-787.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   194 citations  
  • Reasons Regresses and Tragedy.Andrew Cling - 2009 - American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (4):333-346.
    The epistemic regress problem is about the possibility of having beliefs that are based on evidence. The problem of the criterion is about the possibility of having beliefs that are based on general standards for distinguishing what is true from what is false. These problems are similar. Each is constituted by a set of propositions about epistemically valuable relational properties—being supported by evidence and being authorized by a criterion of truth—that are individually plausible but jointly inconsistent, a paradox. The propositions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations