Hilary Kornblith

In Chapter Four, it is argued that coherence is evidence of truth. A sketch of a theory of approximate truth is developed in terms of the theory of reference outlined in Chapter Three, and this notion is put to work in showing that there is reason to believe that most of our beliefs are at least approximately true. It is then argued that coherence with approximately true beliefs, and thus the beliefs we have, is evidence of truth. ;In Chapter Three, the connection between the theory of knowledge and the theory of reference is explored. The relation between Russell's theory of knowledge and his theory of reference is discussed, and it is argued that Russell was quite correct in insisting that there be a close relationship between these two disciplines. A theory of reference is developed which parallels the causal theory of knowledge presented in Chapter One. This theory is a variant of the causal, or historical theory, presented by Donnellan, Kripke, Putnam and Boyd. ;In Chapter One, an outline of a causal theory of knowledge is presented. It is argued that knowledge is reliably produced true belief, and that a process is reliable just in case it tends to produce true beliefs in relevant actual, as well as counterfactual, situations. ;In Chapter Two, the implications of this account for the debate between foundationalists and coherence theorists is examined. It is argued that standard foundational and coherentist accounts of justification share a common false presupposition, that the proper account of justification must be apsychological. It is argued that by rejecting this presupposition and adopting a causal theory of knowledge, it is possible to develop a theory which contains many of the important grains of truth in both foundationalism and coherentism. ;In this thesis, a causal theory of knowledge is elaborated and its implications examined

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 unreliable in others. This is true not only of the physical environment; it is true of the social environment as well. This has important implications for how we should think about the exercise of individual reason, as well as the interpersonal practice of giving and asking for reasons

The activity of reason-giving plays an important role in our intellectual lives. Some philosophers, however, have expressed a deep distrust of this activity. This chapter examines the grounds for such distrust and argues that it deserves a far more serious hearing than it is typically given. There are important cases in which the very activity of reason giving should be called into question, but the kinds of challenges to reason giving which are most concerning are, it is argued, ones which do not lead to a fundamental breakdown of rationality. Rather, it is argued, there are ways in which the challenges to reason giving can be adequately met.

Timothy Williamson's new book, The Philosophy of Philosophy, has a number of central themes. The very idea that philosophy has a method which is different in kind from the sciences is one Williamson rejects. “… the common assumption of philosophical exceptionalism is false. Even the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori turns out to obscure underlying similarities”. Although Williamson sees the book as “a defense of armchair philosophy”, he also argues that “the differences in subject matter between philosophy and the other sciences are also less deep than is often supposed. In particular, few philosophical questions are conceptual questions in any distinctive sense. …”. In addition, Williamson argues that “the current philosophical mainstream has failed to articulate an adequate philosophical methodology, in part because it has fallen into the classic epistemological error of psychologizing the data. … The picture is wrong; we frequently have better epistemic access to our immediate physical environment than to our own psychology. … Our understanding of philosophical methodology must be rid of internalist preconceptions”. I am tremendously sympathetic with all of these views.In this review, I want to raise a number of questions about philosophical methodology which Williamson does not address. While Williamson is wonderfully forthright on many important issues about philosophical methodology, the view he presents is compatible with a surprisingly wide range of approaches to philosophical questions. This may be precisely what Williamson wants. At this stage in our understanding of the philosophical enterprise, it may be premature to narrow the range of methodological options more than Williamson does. There are some hints, however, that Williamson may favor some of these options more than others, and, if that is so, it would be useful to make that clear and ….

This paper examines the source and content of epistemic norms. In virtue of what is it that epistemic norms have their normative force? A semantic approach to this question, due to Alvin Goldman, is examined and found unacceptable. Instead, accounts seeking to ground epistemic norms in our desires are argued to be most promising. All of these accounts make epistemic norms a variety of hypothetical imperative. It is argued that such an account may be offered, grounding our epistemic norms in desire, which nevertheless makes these imperatives universal. The account is contrasted with some recent work of Stephen Stich.

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 philosophical views.