Guido Tana

Phenomenal Conservatism is an internalist theory of justification that upholds the idea that justification arises from a distinct picture of epistemic warrant based on seemings. Recently, it has enjoyed an ever-growing number of defenders due to its advantages over traditional internalist perspectives. One of its main merits resides in its promise to avoid long-standing challenges to foundationalism. Phenomenal Conservatism supposedly holds the resources to reject an infinite regress of reasons while simultaneously avoiding making the subject’s beliefs arbitrary. This paper aims to show that Phenomenal Conservatism fails to dispel the accusation of arbitrariness and that this failure ultimately undoes its viability as an internalist theory of justification. The arbitrariness objection here developed is lifted from Stewart Cohen’s bootstrapping problem. It argues that by being unable to handle bootstrapping inferences, seemings fail to function as non-arbitrary reasons to believe. Additionally, it is suggested that bootstrapping-related considerations provide better support to one of the main internalist alternatives to Phenomenal Conservatism.

This paper analyzes and objects to the anti-skeptical strategy endorsed by Epistemological Dogmatism, or Phenomenal Conservatism. Dogmatism is a theory of epistemic justification that holds perceptual warrant for our beliefs to be immediate – non-inferential –, based on experiential seemings. Crucially, it rejects requests for higher-order justification or active defense of the justification one's beliefs enjoy. This allows Dogmatism to endorse a neo-Moorean anti-skeptical strategy. In order to ascertain the main element of this strategy, the problem of easy knowledge is introduced. The dogmatic answer to easy knowledge establishes how it rejects the skeptical dialectic, labeling skepticism as a disease and as something that should not be engaged with from the start. Countering this strategy via appeal to skeptical or non-dogmatic intuitions would either beg the question against Dogmatism or have little possibility of adjudicating the disagreement. Therefore, a different route is pursued. The Dogmatic point concerning immediate perceptual warrant is provisionally accepted and tested to determine whether it leads to a tenable position. It is argued that adopting the dogmatic standpoint generates a series of problems that cannot be handled without Dogmatism undergoing a significant revision. This revision and its application to the problem of easy knowledge is then shown as revealing that, far from being able to reject the skeptical dialectic entirely, Dogmatism is already engaging from the start with the skeptical Problem of the Criterion. The dogmatic strategy against skepticism cannot be predicated on a wholesale rejection of skepticism.

Cartesian skepticism requires scenarios of massive deception to make its case. The inability to rule out such possibilities in which our beliefs about the external world are massively mistaken motivates the conclusion that we lack everyday knowledge. Some authors have emphasized that such scenarios are implausible. Others have instead claimed that scenarios are irrelevant to skepticism. If skepticism can make its case, they argue that scenarios of massive deception are not the way to do it. This thesis possesses a distinct anti-sceptical weight. Deprived of its scenario, epistemological skepticism must find a different reason for it to be taken seriously, which might be a tall order. This paper defends the idea that scenarios do not constitute the essential element of the skeptical threat. However, it takes this result in the opposite direction. We aim to show that skepticism without scenarios constitutes a bigger and more legitimate philosophical problem than otherwise. Additionally, it also offers the possibility of achieving a unified understanding of skepticism that is so far lacking in contemporary epistemology, allowing us to better understand what can constitute a satisfactory anti-skeptical strategy.

Skepticism is both a historical and foundational problem in epistemology. Jonathan Schaffer (2010) has provided a new expression of its threat. The Debasing Demon appears to generate a novel form of radical doubt, one that has gained prominence in recent debates. Instead of targeting the connection between belief and truth, it undercuts the link between belief and evidence (or reasons). This contribution presents the Debasing Demon Problem, analyzing its reach. It will provide an account for explaining how its threat is raised, explore its relationship to classical varieties of skepticism, and assess some of the main objections against it. It will be argued that Schaffer’s Demon institutes a consistent epistemic threat, one that might represent the main variety of skepticism to be tackled in epistemology. Some consequences of this analysis are then presented concerning how to face this open problem.

This chapter aims to shed light on the relation between Hesse’s mature work—the culmination of which is arguably her 1974 book The Structure of Scientific Inference and the theoretical perspective that Feyerabend elaborated roughly from 1958 to 1970. The goal is not to present a philological inquiry into the extent to which Hesse’s work can be traced back to Feyerabend. Instead, the aim is to better understand the extent to which the content of Hesse’s general philosophy of science is determined by the issues, topics, and sensibilities that belong to the post-Popperian tradition in epistemology. To achieve this, this chapter will detail Hesse’s engagement with and further development of several concepts and stances that characterized Feyerabend’s philosophy before the publication of Against Method. This analysis will shed light on where Hesse situates herself within the post-Popperian milieu, her series of arguments directed against positivist philosophy of science, and the way in which her position overcomes specific issues and difficulties that undermine Feyerabend’s position. This will provide us with a better appreciation of both thinkers’ approaches to themes such as theory change, explanation, and the theory-ladenness of observational terms. The conclusion will briefly consider whether a more continued interaction of Hesse’s epistemology with Feyerabend’s stance might have benefited her later work.

The aim of this paper is to analyse and develop how scepticism becomes an intelligible question starting from requirements that epistemologists themselves aim to endorse. We argue for and defend the idea that the root of scepticism is the underdetermination principle by articulating its specificitya respectable epistemic principle and by defending it against objections in current literature. This engagement offers a novel understanding of underdetermination-based scepticism. While most anti-sceptical approaches challenge scepticism by understanding it as postulating uneliminated scenarios of mass deception, or as endorsing unnatural epistemic requirements, we argue here that both contentions are mistaken. Underdetermination-based scepticism targets our beliefs by issuing a genuine question about the rational support they enjoy. If we cannot establish that the sources of our beliefs provide them the required epistemic merit and authority, they lack non-arbitrary grounds. This has a sizable impact on what constitutes a satisfactory anti-sceptical strategy. Strategies that merely focus on the scenario-based aspect of scepticism, or on the truth-functional evaluation of our beliefs, are shown to miss the mark of the sceptical threat. The proposed analysis ultimately provides a shift in perspective concerning the character and reach of philosophical doubt.

The following contribution aims at presenting a reading of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy as a kind of idealism within the Kantian and post-Kantian traditions. The goal is to argue that Wittgenstein’s position shares substantial theoretical and methodological grounds with Hegel’s idealism. The main concepts pertaining to the later Wittgenstein’s position are analyzed and understood as a form of idealism. After defending the reading against anti-idealist interpretations we argue that the kind of idealism presented clashes with central tenets of the Kantian position. These points of departure are then shown to cover in a substantial manner the same kind of criticism Hegel raised against Kant. In the last section, an interpretation of central concepts of the Hegelian position is offered in order to dissolve any fundamental incompatibility with Wittgenstein’s idealism

Epistemologists understand radical skepticism as arising from two principles: Closure and Underdetermination. Both possess intuitive prima facie support for their endorsement. Understanding how they engender skepticism is crucial for any reasonable anti-skeptical attempt. The contemporary discussion has focused on elucidating the relationship between them to ascertain whether they establish distinct skeptical questions and which of the two constitutes the ultimately fundamental threat. Major contributions to this debate are due to Brueckner, Cohen, and Pritchard. This contribution aims at defending Brueckner’s contention that underdetermination expresses the fundamental skeptical threat and that the closure-based argument can ultimately be reduced to it, at least concerning skeptical contexts. This will be achieved by undermining Cohen’s objections to Brueckner on both counts. Cohen’s argument endorses a picture of evidential underdetermination, which, while apt for non-skeptical contexts, cannot be applied to radical skepticism. A comparison with a case of scientific underdetermination is developed to argue for this idea. Our argument is then applied to the principle equivalence issue and to objections against it. It is then shown how this analysis possesses a distinctive effect on our understanding of the skeptical threat and the assessment of successful anti-skeptical strategies.