Matthias Steup

Internalist foundationalism can be holistic or monistic. Holistic foundationalism says justification requires evidence providing meta-justification. Monistic foundationalism says it does not: a perceptual experience as of _p_ gives, all by itself, a subject justification for believing _p_. Holistic foundationalists claim that such an experience gives a subject justification for believing _p_ only if the experience is embedded in a body of evidence that justifies the subject in viewing the experience as reliable, thus putting the subject in a position to reject _p_-incompatible skeptical alternatives. This chapter discusses whether Fumerton’s internalism foundationalism is monistic or holistic. In light of his principle of inferential internalism, it initially seems Fumerton is holistic about inferential justification and monistic about foundational justification. However, given his commitment to internalism, it turns out that Fumerton’s acquaintance-based construal of foundational justification has a strong kind of meta-justification built into it and thus must be understood as holistic.

__A Companion to Epistemology,_ 2 Volume Set, 3rd Edition_ _A Companion to Epistemology_ provides a comprehensive, up-to-date reference for understanding the theory of knowledge. Edited by distinguished scholars, this expanded third edition explores classic questions about knowledge and justified belief alongside contemporary topics such as social and political epistemology, the ethics of belief, and the epistemology of perception. With contributions from established and younger voices in the field, each entry offers insights into key issues, definitions, and debates, creating a rich resource for both introductory and advanced exploration. Extending its reach with critical coverage of emerging and underexplored areas, this third edition contains more than 50 new survey articles and an updated "Epistemology A-Z" glossary containing hundreds of entries. It also brings in wider perspectives, covering classical Indian and Islamic epistemology and featuring new entries on historical and present-day women philosophers, for example. With clear explanations and thoughtful analysis, the _Companion_ captures the diversity and relevance of epistemology today. Ideal for undergraduate and graduate students studying philosophy, cognitive science, or ethics, _A Companion to Epistemology_ is also an indispensable reference for educators, scholars, and researchers. Its accessible yet thorough structure makes it a valuable addition to any academic collection, supporting coursework, independent study, and advanced research.

Eleven pairs of newly commissioned essays face off on opposite sides of fundamental problems in current theories of knowledge. Brings together fresh debates on eleven of the most controversial issues in epistemology. Questions addressed include: Is knowledge contextual? Can skepticism be refuted? Can beliefs be justified through coherence alone? Is justified belief responsible belief? Lively debate format sharply defines the issues, and paves the way for further discussion. Will serve as an accessible introduction to the major topics in contemporary epistemology, whilst also capturing the imagination of professional philosophers.

Eleven pairs of newly commissioned essays face off on opposite sides of fundamental problems in current theories of knowledge. Brings together fresh debates on eleven of the most controversial issues in epistemology. Questions addressed include: Is knowledge contextual? Can skepticism be refuted? Can beliefs be justified through coherence alone? Is justified belief responsible belief? Lively debate format sharply defines the issues, and paves the way for further discussion. Will serve as an accessible introduction to the major topics in contemporary epistemology, whilst also capturing the imagination of professional philosophers.

How should epistemologists respond to skepticism about knowledge of the external world? Michael Bergmann advocates noninferential antiskepticism. The thought is that, to reply to a skeptical argument, we should start with premises that do not require inference. I argue that Bergmann’s reasoning runs into the problem of easy knowledge and propose an alternative inferential antiskepticism. This view faces the problem of vicious circularity. I agree that, if we go down the inferential path, a certain type of circularity is unavoidable. I deny, however, that this type of circularity is vicious.

Traditional theories of knowledge explain knowledge in terms of things like justification and belief. Knowledge-first theories of justification and belief explain justification and belief in terms of knowledge. When epistemologists ask whether knowledge "comes first," they are asking whether traditional theories of knowledge take the right approach, or whether knowledge-first theories of things like justification and belief take the right approach. In her contribution to this debate, Mona Simion defends knowledge-first epistemology by defending a knowledge-first theory of belief and using this theory of belief to motivate a knowledge-first theory of justification. In his contribution to this debate, Aidan McGlynn defends traditional epistemology by critiquing Simion's knowledge-first theory of belief. As Simion and McGlynn both recognize, Simion's argument depends on the idea that beliefs that do not amount to knowledge are epistemically defective. While Simion thinks this is plausible, McGlynn thinks we can produce examples of epistemically non-defective beliefs that do not amount to knowledge. As McGlynn acknowledges, his contribution to the debate does not provide a traditional theory of knowledge in place of Simion's knowledge-first theories of justification and belief. However, if McGlynn is right that we can produce examples of epistemically non-defective beliefs that do not amount to knowledge, this casts doubt on at least one central idea in knowledge-first epistemology: that knowledge has explanatory priority over belief.

When their landmark paper, “Evidentialism” (1985), first appeared, Conee and Feldman expressed some surprise that the theory needed any defense at all. But the need for a defense has become increasingly apparent in the last forty years as a wide variety of non-evidentialist epistemologies have emerged. The initial paper was the launching point for an enormous research program in epistemology—many epistemologists define their points of view at least partly in terms of how they relate to evidentialism. Interest in evidentialism and related issues has not waned since 1985, and it promises to continue going strong. The range of fresh ideas in this cutting-edge collection, marking the 40th anniversary of “Evidentialism”, will appeal to anyone working on evidentialism, evidence, the nature of justification, evidential support, or any of a host of related topics in epistemology.

It seems plausible that there can be “no win” moral situations in which no matter what one does one fails some moral obligation. Is there an epistemic analog to moral dilemmas? Are there epistemically dilemmatic situations—situations in which we are doomed to violate an epistemic requirement? If there are, when exactly do they arise and what can we learn from them? A team of top epistemologists address these and closely related questions from a variety of new, sometimes unexpected, angles. Anyone interested in epistemic dilemmas, the nature of justification and evidential support, higher-order requirements, or suspension of judgment will find a range of useful arguments and fresh ideas in this cutting-edge anthology.

This volume presents new research on the epistemology of seemings. It features original essays by leading epistemologists on the nature and epistemic import of seemings and intuitions. Seemings and intuitions are often appealed to in philosophical theorizing. In fact, epistemological theories such as phenomenal conservatism and dogmatism give pride of place to seemings. Such views insist that seemings are of central importance to theories of epistemic justification. However, there are many questions about seemings that have yet to be answered satisfactorily. What kinds of seemings are there? How do seemings justify? Are seemings connected to truth? Do they play a significant role in inquiry? The chapters in this volume offer a range of useful arguments and fresh ideas about seemings, the nature of justification and evidential support, intuitions, inquiry, and the nature of inference. Seemings: New Arguments, New Angles will be of interest to researchers and advanced students working in epistemology and philosophy of mind.

This book offers a systematic and up-to-date account of the landscape of contemporary epistemology. It presupposes only a minimum of prior philosophical knowledge, and includes an account of the logical and conceptual tools needed for philosophical analysis. Focuses on the writings and ideas of W. Alston, R. Audi, L. BonJour, R. Chisholm, A. Goldman. H. Kornboith, K. Lehrer. A. Plantinga, W. V. Quine, E. Sosa, and B Stroud, among others; links particular theories and arguments to their chief proponents and critics.

According to externalist reliabilism and dogmatic foundationalism, it's possible to gain knowledge through a perceptual experience without being in a position to know that the experience is reliable. As a result, both of these views face the problem of making knowledge of perceptual reliability too easy, for they permit deducing perceptual reliability from particular perceptual experience without already knowing that these experiences are trustworthy. Ernest Sosa advocates a two-stage solution to the problem. At the first stage, a rich body of perceptual animal knowledge is acquired. At the second stage, perceptual knowledge becomes reflective after deducing perceptual reliability from the initial body of perceptual animal knowledge. I defend the alternative approach of rejecting both externalist reliabilism and dogmatic foundationalism. According to the alternative view, perceptual knowledge and knowledge of perceptual reliability require each other. Such a cognitive structure seems viciously circular. I propose that the appearance of vicious circularity dissipates when the relationship in question is viewed, not as one of temporal priority, but instead as synchronic mutual dependence. At a given time, one cannot have perceptual knowledge without knowledge of perceptual reliability, and vice versa. Such mutual dependence, I argue, is benign.

Should we only believe what science can prove? Robert Almeder analyzes "naturalized epistemology," which holds that the only valid claims that can be made about the world must be proven by the natural sciences and that all philosophical questions are ultimately answered by science. The author examines and refutes different forms of naturalized epistemology before settling on "harmless naturalism," a compromise which implies that certain questions about the world are answerable and have been answered, without appealing to science. (publisher)

In recent years, what is commonly referred to as “virtue epistemology” has gained momentum. One of the first to champion this approach with much force and sophistication was Ernest Sosa. James Montmarquet has contributed to the ascendancy of virtue epistemology with a fine monograph, and Alvin Goldman has, at least indirectly, confirmed the attraction of this approach by rephrasing his latest version of reliabilism in terms of epistemic virtues and vices. In Virtues of the Mind, Linda Zagzebski has set forth what is probably, to date, the most systematic account and defence of virtue epistemology. The book has three parts. In the first, Zagzebski explains why she thinks the current state of epistemology provides us with ample reasons to turn to a virtue-based approach. In the second, she develops the theoretical framework of ethical and intellectual virtues. In the third, she applies this framework to the analysis of knowledge.

According to infinitism, all justification comes from an infinite series of reasons. Peter Klein defends infinitism as the correct solution to the regress problem by rejecting two alternative solutions: foundationalism and coherentism. I focus on Klein's argument against foundationalism, which relies on the premise that there is no justification without meta-justification. This premise is incompatible with dogmatic foundationalism as defended by Michael Huemer and Time Pryor. It does not, however, conflict with non-dogmatic foundationalism. Whereas dogmatic foundationalism rejects the need for any form of meta-justification, non-dogmatic foundationalism merely rejects Laurence BonJour's claim that meta-justification must come from beliefs. Unlike its dogmatic counterpart, non-dogmatic foundationalism can allow for basic beliefs to receive meta-justification from non-doxastic sources such as experiences and memories. Construed thus, non-dogmatic foundationalism is compatible with Klein's principle that there is no justification without meta-justification. I conclude that Klein's rejection of foundationalism. fails. Nevertheless, I agree with Klein that when in response to a skeptical challenge we engage in the activity of defending our beliefs, the number of reasons we can give is at least in principle infinite. I argue that this type of infinity is benign because, when we continue to give reasons, we will eventually merely repeat previously stated reasons. Consequently, I reject Klein's claim that the more reasons we give the more we increase the justification of our beliefs.

According to evidentialism, justification is a matter of evidential fit. Some evidentialists analyze the notion of evidential fit in terms of explanation. Applied to perception, the idea is, roughly, that an experience as of p is evidence for you in support of believing p if, and only if, p is either included in, or is a logical consequence of, the set of propositions that explain why you have that seeming. In this paper, I will raise problems for this approach and argue in defense of an alternative proposal.