•  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.
  •  1778
    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
  •  229
    Innocuous Infallibility
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (2): 406-408. 2002.
    Alan Sidelle has offered an argument to show that internalism about justification implies us to have a certain sort of infallibility concerning some internal facts. This is true but harmless to internalism.
  •  260
    The possibility of power beyond possibility
    Philosophical Perspectives 5 447-473. 1991.
  •  272
    The comforts of home
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2): 444-451. 2005.
    The paper argues against Timothy Williamson's anti-luminosity argument. It also offers an argument against luminosity from the possibility of defeat of introspective justification.