Ignacio Vilaro

In this paper, I analyse Agrippa’s trilemma, an old skeptical argument that questions the possibility of justifying any arbitrary belief p and its paradox about jus-tification. Assuming that neither infinitism nor skepticism are satisfactory positions, the main alternatives available to face the problem (foundationism, coherentism and epistemic externalism) are outlined, as well as some central arguments that show the serious difficulties they face. In the case of foundationalism, these problems arise from two dilemmas, which work together with the trilemma to make our philosophical life even more difficult: the so-called Sellar’s dilemma and Bergmann’s dilemma —although the latter is a very general attack on internalism. The former calls into question the inte-lligibility of a key idea of standard foundationalism: the notion of justified basic belief. The second casts doubt on the rational sustainability of epistemic internalism, which is a usual presupposition of the presentation of the trilemma. I explore a Humean way out of the trilemma that also manages to escape such dilemmas. Like any position in this difficult territory the way out has costs. However, they do not seem unaffordable. Here I only intend to tentatively present the idea, as a possible way out of our difficulties, which deserves to be seriously discussed.

Una teoría de las oraciones de adscripción de conocimiento debe lidiar con el desafío escéptico cartesiano. El Contextualismo Epistémico ofrece una manera atractiva de hacerlo, lo que se considera una de sus virtudes principales. Pero, una vez que uno comienza a pedir más claridad sobre cómo se supone que funciona la estrategia, no tardan en aparecer los problemas. Recuerdo muy brevemente algunas versiones no promisorias del Contextualismo, ya reseñadas por Keith DeRose, y luego presento su propia versión del Contextualismo, diseñada para superar las dificultades de estas últimas. Ofrezco razones para pensar que, en último término, DeRose tampoco logra enfrentar satisfactoriamente dichos problemas. El simpatizante del Contextualismo nos debe una explicación de cómo se supone que debemos implementar su estrategia anti-escéptica.

En este trabajo propongo una definición pragmática de la falacia de petición de principio. En la primera parte considero y rechazo la sugerencia de Frank Jackson de que la argumentación posee otro fin además del de convencer racionalmente a nuestro interlocutor de que algo es el caso. En la segunda parte ofrezco la definición. En la tercera parte hablo brevemente acerca de la representación de argumentos por medio de grafos. Finalmente, en la cuarta parte aplico la definición propuesta a algunos ejemplos de argumentos.---“A Pragmatic Definition of the Begging the Question Fallacy”. A pragmatic definition of the Begging the question fallacy is presented in this paper. In the first part of it I consider and reject Frank Jackson’s suggestion according to which argumentation possesses a different end than rationally persuading an audience that something is the case. The definition is presented in part II. Part III refers briefly to the representation of arguments through graphs. Finally, in part IV, the proposed definition is applied to some argument examples.

According to epistemic contextualism, the truth value of a knowledge ascription sentence varies in relation to the epistemic standard in play at its context of use. Contextualists promise a relatively conservative (dis)solution of the skeptical paradox that threatens to destroy our alleged everyday knowledge, based on our apparent inability to discard some exotic possibilities of error. The origins of the contextualist position have been traced back to some passages of Austin’s “Other Minds.” However, it is at best dubious whether the alternative there explored is indeed contextualist. Austin seems to be proposing a much more radical position, one still ignored in the literature. This paper aims to develop an Austinian approach to knowledge attributions. I show how we could use the Austinian account to solve this skeptical paradox. I also respond to some important objections to this view.