Abstract
The evidential role of experience in justifying beliefs has been at the center of debate in philosophy in recent years. One view is that experience, or seeming, can confer immediate (defeasible) justification on belief in virtue of its representational phenomenology. Call this view “representational dogmatism.” Another view is that experience confers immediate justification on belief in virtue of its relational phenomenology. Call this view “relational dogmatism.” The goal of this paper is to pit these two versions of dogmatism against each other in terms of their ability to account for ampliative, or non-deductive, inferential justification. I will argue that only the representational view can provide a plausible account of this type of justification.
Reference65 articles.
1. ALSTON, W. P. Sellars and the Myth of the Given. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 65, n. 1, p. 69-86, 2002.
2. BEEBE, J. The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 79, n. 3, p. 605-636, 2009.
3. BERGMANN, M. Epistemic Circularity: Malignant and Benign. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 69, p. 709-727, 2004.
4. BONJOUR, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.
5. BONJOUR, L. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献