Brown University
Department of Philosophy
PhD, 2003
Tucson, Arizona, United States of America
Areas of Specialization
Epistemology
Areas of Interest
Epistemology
Metaphysics
  •  31
    Philosophical Issues, Volume 30, Issue 1, Page 54-70, October 2020.
  •  157
    We Are (Almost) All Externalists Now
    Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1): 59-76. 2005.
    In this paper I argue against Mentalism, the claim that all the factors that contribute to the epistemic justification of a doxastic attitude towards a proposition by a subject S are mental states of S. My objection to mentalism is that there is a special kind of fact (what I call a "support fact") that contributes to the justification of any belief, and that is not mental. My argument against mentalism, then, is the following: Anti-mentalism argument: 1. If mentalism is true, then support facts…Read more
  •  182
    Justified vs. warranted perceptual belief: Resisting disjunctivism
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2): 367-383. 2005.
    In this paper I argue that McDowell’s brand of disjunctivism about perceptual knowledge is ill-motivated. First, I present a reconstruction of one main motivation for disjunctivism, in the form of an argument that theories that posit a “highest common factor” between veridical and non-veridical experiences must be wrong. Then I show that the argument owes its plausibility to a failure to distinguish between justification and warrant (where “warrant” is understood as whatever has to be added to t…Read more
  •  238
    Rationality and Truth
    In Julien Dutant & Fabian Dorsch (eds.), The New Evil Demon, Oxford University Press. forthcoming.
    The traditional view in epistemology is that we must distinguish between being rational and being right (that is also, by the way, the traditional view about practical rationality). In his paper in this volume, Williamson proposes an alternative view according to which only beliefs that amount to knowledge are rational (and, thus, no false belief is rational). It is healthy to challenge tradition, in philosophy as much as elsewhere. But, in this instance, we think that tradition has it right. In…Read more
  •  228
    Whither Evidentialist Reliabilism?
    In Kevin McCain (ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer. pp. 307-25. 2018.
    Evidentialism and Reliabilism are two of the main contemporary theories of epistemic justification. Some authors have thought that the theories are not incompatible with each other, and that a hybrid theory which incorporates elements of both should be taken into account. More recently, other authors have argued that the resulting theory is well- placed to deal with fine-grained doxastic attitudes (credences). In this paper I review the reasons for adopting this kind of hybrid theory, paying att…Read more
  •  214
    A Plea for Falsehoods
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 100 (2): 247-276. 2020.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, EarlyView.
  •  111
    Empirical justification and defeasibility
    Synthese 198 (Suppl 7): 1771-1786. 2018.
    Two truisms about empirical justification are that experience plays a crucial role in it and that it is defeasible. There are, of course, different ways of developing these truisms into philosophical theories. I favor one particular view about the role of experience in empirical justification which may be thought to lead to problems in accommodating its defeasibility. My aim in this paper is to argue that the problems are illusory, based on an entrenched misconception how defeaters work.
  •  243
    Having False Reasons
    In Clayton Littlejohn & John Turri (eds.), Epistemic Norms, Oxford University Press. pp. 59-80. 2014.
  • The Ways of Reason
    Dissertation, Brown University. 2003.
    This dissertation is about rationality, both practical rationality , and theoretical rationality . I argue that there are interesting similarities as well as interesting differences between practical and theoretical rationality. One of the similarities is that both of them are essentially related to the explanation of actions and beliefs, and one of the differences is that whereas theoretical rationality has the hyper-external aim of truth, practical rationality has the non-hyper-external aim of…Read more
  •  209
    Is Evidence Knowledge?
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2): 447-454. 2010.
    We argue that if evidence were knowledge, then there wouldn’t be any Gettier cases, and justification would fail to be closed in egregious ways. But there are Gettier cases, and justification does not fail to be close in egregious ways. Therefore, evidence isn’t knowledge.
  •  80
    Conciliation and Peer-Demotion in the Epistemology of Disagreement
    American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (3): 237-252. 2012.
    What should your reaction be when you find out that someone that you consider an "epistemic peer" disagrees with you? Two broad approaches to this question have gained support from different philosophers. Precise characterizations of these approaches will be given later, but consider for now the following approximations. First, there is the "conciliatory" approach, according to which the right reaction to a disagreement is to move one's opinion towards that of one's peer, in proportion to the de…Read more
  •  232
    Unsafe Knowledge
    Synthese 146 (3): 395-404. 2005.
    Ernest Sosa has argued that if someone knows that p, then his belief that p is “safe”. and Timothy Williamson has agreed. In this paper I argue that safety, as defined by Sosa, is not a necessary condition on knowledge – that we can have unsafe knowledge. I present Sosa’s definition of safety and a counterexample to it as a necessary condition on knowledge. I also argue that Sosa’s most recent refinements to the notion of safety don’t help him to avoid the counterexample. I consider three replie…Read more
  •  376
    Evidentialist Reliabilism
    Noûs 44 (4): 571-600. 2010.
    I argue for a theory that combines elements of reliabilism and evidentialism.
  •  64
    Falsehood and Entailment
    Philosophical Perspectives 29 (1): 82-94. 2015.
  •  168
    Can We Believe for Practical Reasons?
    Philosophical Issues 25 (1): 189-207. 2015.
  •  505
    Williamson on Gettier Cases and Epistemic Logic
    Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (1): 15-29. 2013.
    Timothy Williamson has fruitfully exploited formal resources to shed considerable light on the nature of knowledge. In the paper under examination, Williamson turns his attention to Gettier cases, showing how they can be motivated formally. At the same time, he disparages the kind of justification he thinks gives rise to these cases. He favors instead his own notion of justification for which Gettier cases cannot arise. We take issue both with his disparagement of the kind of justification that …Read more
  •  93
    On a Puzzle About Withholding
    Philosophical Quarterly 63 (251): 374-376. 2013.
    I discuss Turri's puzzle about withholding. I argue that attention to the way in which evidence can justify withholding dissolves the puzzle
  •  202
    Evidence of evidence is evidence
    with Eyal Tal
    Analysis 75 (4): 557-559. 2015.
    Richard Feldman has proposed and defended different versions of a principle about evidence. In slogan form, the principle holds that ‘evidence of evidence is evidence’. Recently, Branden Fitelson has argued that Feldman’s preferred rendition of the principle falls pray to a counterexample related to the non-transitivity of the evidence-for relation. Feldman replies arguing that Fitelson’s case does not really represent a counterexample to the principle. In this note, we argue that Feldman’s prin…Read more
  •  24
    Comments on Carl Ginet’s “Self-Evidence”
    Veritas – Revista de Filosofia da Pucrs 54 (2): 41-47. 2009.
  •  19
    Justified vs. Warranted Perceptual Belief: Resisting Disjunctivism
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2): 367-383. 2005.
    In this paper I argue that McDowell’s brand of disjunctivism about perceptual knowledge is ill-motivated. First, I present a reconstruction of one main motivation for disjunctivism, in the form of an argument that theories that posit a “highest common factor” between veridical and non-veridical experiences must be wrong. Then I show that the argument owes its plausibility to a failure to distinguish between justification and warrant.
  •  164
    Difference‐Making in Epistemology
    with Carolina Sartorio
    Noûs 48 (2): 368-387. 2014.
  •  155
  • Seguridad y sueños en la epistemología de Sosa
    Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 28 (1). 2009.
  •  110
    On Sharon and Spectre’s argument against closure
    Philosophical Studies 174 (4): 1039-1046. 2017.
  •  180
    Epistemic Pragmatism: An Argument Against Moderation
    Res Philosophica 90 (2): 237-260. 2013.
    By “epistemic pragmatism” in general I will understand the claim that whether propositions instantiate certain key epistemic properties (such as being known orbeing justifiably believed) depends not just on factors traditionally recognized as epistemic, but also on pragmatic factors, such as how costly it would be to the subject if the proposition were false. In what follows I consider two varieties of epistemic pragmatism. According to what I shall call moderate epistemic pragmatism, how much e…Read more