-
318What reflective endorsement cannot doPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (1): 1-19. 2009.We sometimes stop to reflect on our mental states, and such reflection can lead, at times, to changing our minds. It can, as well, lead us to endorse the very attitudes which we previously held. Such reflective endorsement has been called upon to play a wide range of roles in philosophical theorizing. It has been thought to ground a distinction between two fundamentally different kinds of knowledge: reflective knowledge and mere animal knowledge. It has been thought to serve as a ground for …Read more
-
9
-
29How Scientific Practices Matter: Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism (review)Isis 94 791-792. 2003.
-
77Social Prerequisites for the Proper Function of Individual ReasonEpisteme 1 (3): 169-176. 2005.Human beings form beliefs by way of a variety of psychological processes. Some of these processes of belief acquisition are innate; others are acquired. A good deal of interesting work has been done in assessing the reliability of these processes. Any such assessment must examine not only features intrinsic to the psychological processes themselves, but also features of the environments in which those processes are exercised; a mechanism which is reliable in one sort of environment may be quite …Read more
-
299Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism (edited book)Wiley-Blackwell. 2001.This anthology brings together ten papers which have defined and advanced the debate between internalism and externalism in epistemology
-
11Belief in the Face of ControversyIn Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement, Oxford University Press. 2010.We often find that beliefs we hold are in conflict with the beliefs of epistemic peers, individuals who are just as intelligent, just as well-informed, and just as scrupulous in forming their beliefs as we are. Is it permissible to maintain our beliefs in the face of such disagreement? It is argued here that continued belief in these circumstances is not epistemically permissible, and that this has striking consequences for the practice of philosophy: we cannot reasonably hold on to our philos…Read more
-
38. naturalistic epistemology and its criticsIn Steven Luper (ed.), Essential Knowledge: Readings in Epistemology, Longman. pp. 383. 2003.
-
365Knowledge in humans and other animalsPhilosophical Perspectives 13 327-346. 1999.This paper defends an approach to epistemology which treats the study of knowledge as on a par with the study of natural kinds. Knowledge is seen as a natural phenomenon subject to empirical investigation. In particular, it is argued that work in cognitive ethology is relevant to understanding the nature of knowledge, and that this approach sheds light on traditional philosophical questions about knowledge, including questions about the source of epistemic normativity.
-
77The impurity of reasonPacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (1). 2000.Laurence BonJour has defended the view that we have an a priori intellectual capacity to understand the nature of proper reason. This view is critically examined in detail and a naturalistic alternative is proposed and defended according to which our understanding of proper reasoning requires a posteriori support.