•  174
    Stich and Nisbett on justifying inference rules
    Philosophy of Science 50 (2): 326-331. 1983.
    Stich and Nisbett offer an analysis of the concept of a justified inference rule, building upon the efforts of Goodman. They fault Goodman's view on the grounds that it is incompatible with some recent psychological research on reasoning. We criticize their proposal by arguing that it is subject to much the same objections as those they raise against other accounts.
  •  225
    Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (3): 837-840. 2008.
  •  213
    Review: Criterial Problems (review)
    Philosophical Studies 143 (3): 417-426. 2009.
    The two main topics of the paper are an allegedly justified reliability requirement for knowledge and an alleged incoherence among three propositions asserted by Cartesian foundationalism. It is argued that neither the allegation of justified reliability nor the allegation of incoherence is correct.
  •  65
    Book reviews (review)
    Mind 104 (415): 645-650. 1995.
  •  1773
    Evidentialism
    Philosophical Studies 48 (1). 1985.
    Evidentialism is a view about the conditions under which a person is epistemically justified in having a particular doxastic attitude toward a proposition. Evidentialism holds that the justified attitudes are determined entirely by the person's evidence. This is the traditional view of justification. It is now widely opposed. The essays included in this volume develop and defend the tradition.Evidentialism has many assets. In addition to providing an intuitively plausible account of epistemic ju…Read more
  •  356
    Peerage
    Episteme 6 (3): 313-323. 2009.
    Experts take sides in standing scholarly disagreements. They rely on the epistemic reasons favorable to their side to justify their position. It is argued here that no position actually has an overall balance of undefeated reasons in its favor. Candidates for such reasons include the objective strength of the rational support for one side, the special force of details in the case for one side, and a summary impression of truth. All such factors fail to justify any position.