Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2018
Edited by
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Factive Turn in Epistemology , pp. 229 - 245Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3): 368–378.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4): 556–574.Google Scholar
Alston, W. P. (1988). The deontological concept of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, M. (2009). How many kinds of reasons? Philosophical Explorations, 12(2): 181–193.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. (2010). Kinds of Reasons: An Essay in the Philosophy of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. (2016a). Reasons for action, acting for reasons and rationality. Synthese. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-1005-9.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. (2016b). Reasons for action: Justification, motivation, explanation. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention (2nd Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (1941). Nichomachean Ethics [350 BCE]. In McKeon, R. (Ed.) and Ross, W. D. (Trans.), The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (2003). Contemporary foundationalism. In Pojman, L. P. (Ed.), Theory of Knowledge: Classic and Contemporary Readings (3rd Edition, pp. 204–211). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (3rd Edition). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1956). A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57: 1–30.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Warnock, Geoffrey (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Hershey, J. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4): 569–579.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. and Geurts, B. (2014). Presupposition. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/.Google Scholar
Benton, M. (2011). Two more for the knowledge account of assertion. Analysis, 71: 684–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2008). Reidian externalism. In Hendricks, V. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), New Waves in Epistemology (pp. 52–74). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2007). Justified judging. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. (1980). Externalist theories of empirical knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5: 53–73.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. (1985). The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. and Sosa, E. (2003). Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brogaard, B. (2016). Staying indoors: How phenomenal dogmatism solves the skeptical problem without going externalist. In Coppenger, B. and Bergmann, M. (Eds.), Intellectual Assurance (pp. 85–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. (2008). Subject-sensitive invariantism and the knowledge norm for practical reasoning. Noûs, 42(2): 167–189.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. (1994). The structure of skeptical arguments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54: 827–835.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. (2009). E = K and perceptual knowledge. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (pp. 5–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, W. (in press). Epistemic contextualism and linguistic behavior. In Ichikawa, J. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, W. and Stich, S. (2014). Gender and philosophical intuition. In Knobe, J. and Nichols, S. (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy (2nd Edition, pp. 307–346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, W. and Turri, J. (in press). Modest scientism in philosophy. In Ridder, J. R., Peels, R. and van Woudenberg, R. (Eds.), Scientism: Prospects and Problems. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1979). Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4(1): 73–122.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1988). Individualism and self-knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 85: 649–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(3): 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2005). Disjunctivism and perceptual psychology. Philosophical Topics, 33(1): 1–78.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2011). Disjunctivism again. Philosophical Explorations, 14(1): 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and Consciousness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, J. A., Gordon, E. and Jarvis, B. (Eds.) (forthcoming). Knowledge-First. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2005). The matrix as metaphysics. In Grau, C. (Ed.), Philosophers Explore the Matrix (pp. 132–175). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1964). The myth of the given. In Chisholm, R. (Ed.), Philosophy (pp. 261–286). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1977). Theory of Knowledge (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1989). Theory of Knowledge (3rd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. (2013). Belief is credence one (in context). Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(11): 1–18.Google Scholar
Coates, A. (2012). Rational epistemic akrasia. American Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 113–124.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1984). Justification and truth. Philosophical Studies, 46(3): 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. (1998). Two kinds of sceptical argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58: 143–159.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. and Lehrer, K. (1983). Justification, truth, and knowledge. Synthese, 55(2): 191–207.Google Scholar
Comesaña, J. (2002). The diagonal and the demon. Philosophical Studies, 110(3): 249–266.Google Scholar
Comesaña, J. and McGrath, M. (2014). Having false reasons. In Littlejohn, C. and Turri, J. (Eds.), Epistemic Norms (pp. 59–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, C. and Lauer, S. (2016). Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(8): 1–69.Google Scholar
Conee, E. (1998). Seeing the truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58(4): 847–857.Google Scholar
Conee, E. (2004). The basic nature of epistemic justification [1988]. In Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (Eds.), Evidentialism (pp. 37–52). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conee, E. (2007). Review of Jonathan Sutton, Without Justification. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 12. Available at http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=11803.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2008). Evidence. In Smith, Q. (Ed.), Epistemology: New Essays (pp. 83–104). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2011). Replies. In Dougherty, T. (Ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents (pp. 281–329). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, C. and Roelofsen, F. (2016). Questions. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/questions/.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (2011). Acting in ignorance. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 6(3): 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. (2014). On knowing one’s reason. In Littlejohn, C. and Turri, J. (Eds.), Epistemic Norms (pp. 81–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2003). Desires, reasons, and causes. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67: 436–443.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. The Journal of Philosophy, 60: 685–700.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1983). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In Henrich, D. (Ed.), Kant oder Hegel? Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (2001). Essays on Actions and Events (2nd Edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (Ed.) (2011a). Evidentialism and Its Discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2011b). Introduction. In Dougherty, T. (Ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2011c). In defense of propositionalism about evidence. In Dougherty, T. (Ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents (pp. 226–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. and Rysiew, P. (2014). Experience first (etc.). In Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd Edition, pp. 10–16, 17–22, 25–26). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (2005a). Reply to Hawthorne. In Sosa, E. and Steup, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 43–46). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (2005b). The case against closure. In Sosa, E. and Steup, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 13–26). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dutant, J. (forthcoming). Knowledge-based decision theory and the new evil demon. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. and Fitelson, B. (2015). Accuracy, coherence, and evidence. In Hawthorne, J. and Gendler, T. (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology (Vol. 5, pp. 61–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2009). Wouldn’t it be nice if p, therefore, p (for a moral p). Utilitas, 21: 222–224.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2010). Not just a truthometer: Taking oneself seriously (but not too seriously) in cases of peer disagreement. Mind, 119(476): 953–997.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2012). Being responsible, taking responsibility, and penumbral agency. In Heuer, U. and Lang, G. (Eds.), Luck, Value and Commitment: Themes from the Ethics of Bernard Williams (pp. 95–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (1988). Subjective and objective justification in ethics and epistemology. The Monist, 71: 405–419.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2014). Justification is internal. In Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd Edition, pp. 337–350). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48(1): 15–34. Reprinted in Evidentialism (pp. 83–100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finlay, S. (2014). Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normative Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. (1999). The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 66: 362–378.Google Scholar
Fogal, D. (2016a). Reasons, reason, and context. In Lord, E. and Maguire, B. (Eds.), Weighing Reasons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fogal, D. (2016b). Review of Stephen Finlay’s Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normative Language. Ethics, 127: 281–288.Google Scholar
Fogal, D. and Sylvan, K. (2017). Contextualism about epistemic reasons. In Ichikawa, J. J. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foley, R. (2001). The foundational role of epistemology in a general theory of rationality. In Fairweather, A. and Zagzebski, L. (Eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility (pp. 214–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gao, J. (2017). Rational action without knowledge (and vice versa). Synthese, 124(6): 1901–1917.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2009). Conceptual equivocation and epistemic relevance. Dialectica, 63(2): 117–132.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2012). Discursive justification and skepticism. Synthese, 189(2): 373–394.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2013). Epistemic Reasoning and the Mental. Macmillan, Palgrave, Innovations in Philosophy Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2014). Same, same but different: The epistemic norms of assertion, action and practical reasoning. Philosophical Studies, 168(3): 745–767.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2015). The roles of knowledge ascriptions in epistemic assessment. European Journal of Philosophy, 23(1): 141–161.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (2017). On Folk Epistemology: How we think and talk about knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (forthcoming a). Epistemic entitlement – Its scope and limits. In Graham, P. and Pedersen, N. (Eds.), Epistemic Entitlement. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, M. (forthcoming b). Against Knowledge-First Epistemology. In Carter, A., Gordon, E., and Jarvis, B. (Eds.), Knowledge-First Approaches in Epistemology and Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2010b). Things that make things reasonable. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 335–361.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2016). Comments on Pritchard’s Epistemological Disjunctivism. Journal of Philosophical Research, 41: 183–191.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (1976) Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1979). What is justified belief? In Pappas, G. (Ed.), Justification and Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2009). Williamson on knowledge and evidence. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (pp. 73–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, D. (2014). A puzzle about epistemic akrasia. Philosophical Studies, 167: 201–219.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.) (2009). Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (Eds.) (2008). Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2005). The case for closure. In Sosa, E. and Steup, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 26–43). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Magidor, O. (forthcoming). Reflections on reasons. In Star, D. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10): 571–590.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. (1993). The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Holton, R. (2014): Intention as a model for belief. In Vargas, M. and Yaffe, G. (Eds.), Rational and Social Agency: Essays on the Philosophy of Michael Bratman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2007a). Knowledge, belief, and reasons for acting. In Penco, C., Beaney, M. and Vignolo, M. (Eds.), Explaining the Mental (pp. 88–105). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2007b). Knowledge in action. In Leist, A. (Ed.), Action in Context (pp. 285–302). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2008). A disjunctive conception of acting for reasons. In Macpherson, F. and Haddock, A. (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge (pp. 244–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2001). Scepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2007). Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 30–55.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (forthcoming). Defending a brain in a vat. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. (2014). Is knowledge the ability to φ for the reason that p? Episteme, 11: 457–462.Google Scholar
Humberstone, I. L. (1987). Wanting as believing. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17: 49–62.Google Scholar
Hyman, J. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3(5): 933–955.Google Scholar
Hyman, J. (2011). Acting for reasons: Reply to Dancy. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 6(3): 358–368.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. (2012). Knowledge norms and acting well. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 1(1): 49–55.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. (2013). Basic knowledge and contextualist E = K. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(4): 282–292.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. (2014). Justification is potential knowledge. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(2): 184–206.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. (2017). Contextualising Knowledge: Epistemology and Semantics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. and Jarvis, B. (2013). The Rules of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1991). Decision-theoretic Consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection. Ethics, 101: 461–482.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. (2008). Romeo, René, and the reasons why: What explanation is. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 108: 61–84.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. and Nolan, D. (2008). Backwards explanation. Philosophical Studies, 140: 103–115.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Mark. (2009). Williamson’s causal approach to probabilism. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (pp. 122–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3(5): 933–955.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2016). Evidence. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M. (2010). Naïve Realism and experiential evidence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110: 77–109.Google Scholar
Kiesewetter, B. (2016). You ought to φ only if you may believe that you ought to φ. Philosophical Quarterly, 66(265): 760–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York, NY: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (2011). A puzzle about belief. In Philosophical Troubles [1979] (pp. 125–161). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. (2009). Assertion, knowledge, and lotteries. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (pp. 140–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (MS). Enkrasia or Evidentialism: Learning to Love Mismatch.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Richard (2017). Nominalization, Specification, and Investigation. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley PhilArchive copy v1: https://philarchive.org/archive/LAWNSA-4v1Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (2000). Discursive knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(3): 637–653.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Cohen, S. (1983). Justification, truth, and coherence. Synthese, 55: 191–207.Google Scholar
Leite, A. (2013). But that’s not evidence; it’s not even true! The Philosophical Quarterly, 63(250): 81–104.Google Scholar
Lenman, J. (2011). Reasons for action: Justification vs. explanation. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011 Winter Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2009a). The new evil demon problem. In Dowden, B. and Fieser, J. (Eds.), The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available at www.iep.utm.edu/evil-new/.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2009b). The externalist’s demon. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(3): 399–434.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2013b). The Russellian retreat. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 113(3): 293–320.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2014). The unity of reason. In Littlejohn, C. and Turri, J. (Eds.), Epistemic Norms (pp. 135–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2015a). Stop making sense? On a puzzle about rationality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92(3). DOI: 10.1111/phpr.12271.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (forthcoming a). How and why knowledge is first. In Carter, A., Gordon, E., and Jarvis, B. (Eds.), Knowledge-First. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (forthcoming b). Pritchard’s reasons. Journal of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (forthcoming c). A plea for epistemic excuses. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, D. (2014). Knowledge norms and assessing them well. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 3(1): 80–89.Google Scholar
Locke, D. (2015). Knowledge, explanation, and motivation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 52: 215–233.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1975). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding [1690]. (Nidditch, P. H., Ed.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Logins, A. (2014). The problem of massive deception for justification norms of action. Acta Analytic, 29(4): 457–468.Google Scholar
Lord, Errol. (2010). Having reasons and the factoring account. Philosophical Studies, 149(3): 283–296.Google Scholar
Lord, E. (2015). Acting for the right reasons, abilities, and obligation. In Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, E. (forthcoming a). Defeating the externalist’s demons. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, E. (forthcoming b). The Importance of Being Rational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (2013). Should reliabilists be worried about demon worlds? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86(1): 1–40.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2016). Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mantel, S. (2013). Acting for reasons, apt action, and knowledge. Synthese, 190: 3865–3888.Google Scholar
Mantel, S. (2014). No reason for identity: On the relation between motivating and normative reasons. Philosophical Explorations, 17: 49–62.Google Scholar
Mantel, S. (2015). Worldly reasons: An ontological inquiry into motivating considerations and normative reasons. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. DOI: 10.1111/papq.12094.Google Scholar
Marion, M. (2000). Oxford realism: Knowledge and perception (Parts I and II). British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 8: 299–338 & 485–519.Google Scholar
Marks, G., and Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1): 72.Google Scholar
Mazzocco, P., Alicke, M., and Davis, T. (2004). On the robustness of outcome bias: No constraint by prior culpability. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26: 131–146.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1982). Criteria, defeasibility, and knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 68: 455–479.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1995). Knowledge and the internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55: 877–893.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1998). Singular thought and the extent of inner space. In Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality (pp. 228–259). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2010). Tyler Burge on disjunctivism. Philosophical Explorations, 13(3): 243–255.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2013a). Acting in the light of a fact. In Bakhurst, D., Hooker, B., and Little, B. O. (Eds.), Thinking About Reasons: Themes from the Philosophy of Jonathan Dancy (pp. 13–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2013b). Tyler Burge on disjunctivism (II). Philosophical Explorations, 16(3): 259–279.Google Scholar
McKinnon, R. (2013). The supportive reasons norm of assertion. American Philosophical Quarterly, 50: 121–135.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (2013). Why rationalisation is not a species of causal explanation. In D’Oro, G. and Sandis, C. (Eds.), Reasons and Causes: Causalism and Anti-Causalism in the Philosophy of Action. London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2017). Perspectival externalism is the antidote for radical skepticism. Episteme, 14(3): 363–379.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (forthcoming). Competent perspectives and the new evil demon problem. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitova, V. (2015). Truthy psychologism about evidence. Philosophical Studies, 172: 1105–1126.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1925). A defence of common sense. In Muirhead, J. H. (Ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series, pp. 193–223). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1939). Proof of an external world. Proceedings of the British Academy, 25: 273–300.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. (2013). Knowledge as a mental state. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4: 275–310.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. (2014). Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2003). Contextualism and the problem of the external world. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66: 1–31.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2008). What evidence do you have? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 8–19.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2009). Defeating the dogma of defeasibility. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (pp. 161–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2011). The nature and reach of privileged access. In Hatzimoysis, A. (Ed.), Self-Knowledge (pp. 9–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (forthcoming). How Holy is the Disjunctivist Grail? Journal of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
Neta, R. and Pritchard, D. H. (2007). McDowell and the New Evil Genius. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 381–396.Google Scholar
Nolfi, K. (2015). How to be a Normativist about the nature of belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96: 181–204.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nuccetelli, S. (1999). What anti-individualists cannot know a priori. Analysis, 59: 48–51.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1997). Reasons and motivation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 71: 99–129.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2001). Rationality and reasons. In Egonsson, D., Joesefsson, J., Petersson, B., and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (Eds.), Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values (pp. 19–39). Ashgate.Google Scholar
Paul, L. and Hall, N. (2013). Causation: A User’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips Griffiths, A. (Ed.) (1967). Knowledge and Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. and Cruz, J. (1999). Contemporary Theories of Knowledge (2nd Edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2002a). Recent work on radical skepticism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39: 215–257.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2002b). Resurrecting the Moorean response to the sceptic. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 10: 283–307.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2005b). The structure of sceptical arguments. Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 37–52.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2007). How to be a neo-Moorean. In Goldberg, S. (Ed.), Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology (pp. 68–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2008). McDowellian neo-Mooreanism. In Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge (pp. 283–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2010). Relevant alternatives, perceptual knowledge, and discrimination. Noûs, 44: 245–68.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2011a). Epistemological disjunctivism and the basis problem. Philosophical Issues, 21: 434–455.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2011b). Evidentialism, internalism, disjunctivism. In Dougherty, T. (Ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents (pp. 362–392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2011c). Wittgenstein on scepticism. In Kuusela, O. and McGinn, M. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on Wittgenstein (pp. 521–547). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2012). Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2014). Sceptical intuitions. In Rowbottom, D. and Booth, T. (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 213–231). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2015a). Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2015b). Précis of epistemological disjunctivism. Analysis, 75: 589–595.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2016). Epistemic angst. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. DOI: 10.1111/phpr.12280.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (2017). Wittgenstein on hinges and radical scepticism in On Certainty. In Glock, H.-J. and Hyman, J. (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (forthcoming a). Précis of epistemological disjunctivism. Journal of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (forthcoming b). Responses to my critics. Journal of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. H. (forthcoming c). Shadowlands. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. (2014). There is immediate justification. In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd Edition, pp. 202–222). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7: 131–193.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, Truth, and History. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1999). Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, T. (1997). An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense [1764]. (Brookes, D. R., Ed.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press and University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, T. (2002). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man [1785]. (Brookes, D. R., Ed.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012a). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012b). Information structure: Afterword. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(7): 1–19.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (2001). Epistemic and moral duty. In Steup, M. (Ed.), Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue (pp. 34–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (2009). The Concept of Mind [1949]. (60th Anniversary Edition) New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. (2008). Rationality disputes – Psychology and epistemology. Philosophy Compass, 3(6): 1153–1176.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. (2011). Making it evident: Evidence and evidentness, justification and belief. In Dougherty, T. (Ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents (pp. 207–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandis, C. (2013). Can action-explanations ever be non-factive. In Bakhurst, D., Little, M. O., and Hooker, B. (Eds.), Thinking about Reasons: Themes from the Philosophy of Jonathan Dancy (pp. 29–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, S. and Majors, B. (2005). The epistemological argument for content externalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1): 257–280.Google Scholar
Sayre-McCord, G. (MS). On a Theory of a Better Morality.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schönbaumsfeld, G. (2015). Epistemological disjunctivism, by Duncan Pritchard. Analysis, 75: 604–615.Google Scholar
Schroeter, L. and Schroeter, F. (2009). Reasons as right-makers. Philosophical Explorations, 12(3): 279–296.Google Scholar
Sehon, S. (2016). Free Will and Action Explanation: A Non-Causal, Compatibilist Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1: 253–329.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1963). Science, Perception and Reality. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1975). Autobiographical reflections (February 1973). In Castañeda, H.-N. (Ed.), Action, Knowledge, and Reality: Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Sepielli, A. (forthcoming). Subjective and objective reasons. In Star, D. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2007). Reasons without Rationalism. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shaheen, J. L. (2016). Ambiguity and explanation. Inquiry. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2016.1175379.Google Scholar
Shope, R. (1983). The Analysis of Knowing: A Decade of Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simchen, O. (2004). On the impossibility of nonactual epistemic possibilities. The Journal of Philosophy, 101(10): 527–554.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., and Tonhauser, J. (forthcoming). The Best Question: Explaining the Projection Behaviour of Factives. Discourse Processes.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1992). Valuing: Desiring or believing? In Charles, D. and Lennon, K. (Eds.), Reduction, Explanation, and Realism (pp. 323–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (2003). Humeanism, psychologism, and the normative story. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67: 460–467.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (2016). Between Probability and Certainty: What Justifies Belief. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (forthcoming). The cost of treating knowledge as a mental state. In Carter, A., Gordon, E., and Jarvis, B. (Eds.), Knowledge-First Approaches in Epistemology and Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. (1980/1). Perception, vision and causation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 81: 175–192.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999). How to defeat opposition to Moore. Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 141–153.Google Scholar
Soteriou, M. (2010). The disjunctive theory of perception. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/perception-disjunctive/.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steglich-Petersen, A. (2013). Truth as the aim of justification. In Chan, T. (Ed.), The Aim of Belief (pp. 204–226). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, L. (2002). Six levels of mentality. Philosophical Explorations, 5: 105–124.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. (2010). Lessons from the context sensitivity of causal talk. The Journal of Philosophy, 107: 221–242.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. (2015) Rationality’s fixed point (or: in defense of right reason). In Szabó Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Vol. 5 (pp. 253–294) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. (2010). Why open-minded people should endorse dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 529–545.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2011). The express knowledge account of assertion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89: 37–45.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2013). The test of truth: An experimental investigation of the norm of assertion. Cognition, 129(2): 279–291.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015a). The radicalism of truth-insensitive epistemology: truth’s profound effect on the evaluation of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Available at http://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12218.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015b). Evidence of factive norms of belief and decision. Synthese, 192(12): 4009–4030.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015c). Knowledge and the norm of assertion: A simple test. Synthese, 192(2): 385–392.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015d). Knowledge, certainty, and assertion. Philosophical Psychology, 29(2): 293–299.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016a). How to do better: Toward normalizing experimentation in epistemology. In Nado, J. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Methodology (pp. 35–51). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016b). Knowledge and assertion in ‘Gettier’ cases. Philosophical Psychology, 29(5): 759–775.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016c). Vision, knowledge, and assertion. Consciousness and Cognition, 41(C): 41–49.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016d). Knowledge and the Norm of Assertion: An Essay in Philosophical Science. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016e). The radicalism of truth‐insensitive epistemology: Truth’s profound effect on the evaluation of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 93(2): 348–367.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (in press). The distinctive ‘should’ of assertability. Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (under review). Knowledge Attributions and Lottery Cases: A Review and New Evidence. University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
Turri, J. and Blouw, P. (2015). Excuse validation: A study in rule-breaking. Philosophical Studies, 172(3): 615–634.Google Scholar
Turri, J. and Buckwalter, W. (in press). Descartes’s schism, Locke’s reunion: Completing the pragmatic turn in epistemology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 54(1): 25–46.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Friedman, O., and Keefner, A. (2017). Knowledge central: A central role for knowledge attributions in social evaluations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3): 504–515.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (1985). Epistemic supervenience and the circle of belief. The Monist, 68(1): 90–104.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (1999). Reid on the first principles of common sense. Reid Studies, 3(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (1990). Cartesian skepticism and inference to the best explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 87: 658–666.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. (2003). Explanation, deliberation, and reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67: 429–435.Google Scholar
Way, J. and Whiting, D. (2016). If you justifiably believe that you ought to φ, you ought to φ. Philosophical Studies, 173(7): 1873–1895.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. (2012). Knowledge, bets, and interests. In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (Eds.), Knowledge Ascriptions (pp. 75–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2002). Internalism explained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(2): 349–369.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2013b). The right thing to believe. In Chan, T. (Ed.), The Aim of Belief (pp. 123–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (MS). Internalism Re-explained.Google Scholar
White, R. (2014). What is my evidence that here is a hand? In Dodd, D. and Zardini, E. (Eds.), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification (pp. 298–321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, D. (2013). Nothing but the truth: On the norms and aims of belief. In Chan, T. (Ed.), The Aim of Belief (pp. 184–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A. O. (1981). Internal and external reasons. Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2011). Knowledge first epistemology. In Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology (pp. 208–218). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (forthcoming a). Justifications, excuses, and sceptical scenarios. In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (Eds.), The New Evil Demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (forthcoming b). Acting on knowledge. In Carter, J. A., Gordon, E., and Jarvis, B. (Eds.), Knowledge-First. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. (Anscombe, G. E. and von Wright, G. H., Eds.; Paul, D. and Anscombe, G. E., Trans.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2014). Scientific explanation. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/scientific-explanation/.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. (2015). Belief, credence, and the preface paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94: 549–562.Google Scholar
Wright, J. C. (2010). On intuitional stability: The clear, the strong, and the paradigmatic. Cognition, 115(3): 419–503.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1996). How in the world? In Hill, C. (Ed.), Philosophical Topics, 24(1): 255–287.Google Scholar
Zalabardo, J. (2015). Epistemic disjunctivism and the evidential problem. Analysis, 75: 615–627.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. (2008). Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar