Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T05:05:41.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Justification Aim at Truth?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Peter J. Graham
Peter J. Graham*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA92521, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Does epistemic justification aim at truth? The vast majority of epistemologists instinctively answer ‘Yes’; it's the textbook response. Joseph Cruz and John Pollock surprisingly say no. In ‘The Chimerical Appeal of Epistemic Externalism’ they argue that justification bears no interesting connection to truth; justification does not even aim at truth. ‘Truth is not a very interesting part of our best understanding’ of justification (C&P 2004, 137); it has no ‘connection to the truth.’ A ‘truth-aimed … epistemology is not entitled to carry the day’ (C&P 2004, 138, emphasis added).

Pollock and Cruz's argument for this surprising conclusion is of general interest for it is ‘out of step with a very common view on the part of epistemologists, both internalist and externalist alike’ (C&P 2004, 136), as nearly all ‘epistemologists have claimed that truth and falsity play a crucial role in distinguishing between justified and unjustified beliefs [for] believing truths is the ultimate aim of human rational cognition’ (C&P 2004, 125; cf. Audi 1988).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 51 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audi, R. 1988. ‘Justification, Truth, and Reliability.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. 2001. The Architecture of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. 2006. Justification without Awareness. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. ed. 1999. Function, Selection, and Design. Stony Brook: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2003. ‘Perceptual Entitlement.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67: 503–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 2007. Foundations of Mind: Philosophical Essays, volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2010. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, J. and Pollock, J. 2004. ‘The Chimerical Appeal of Epistemic Externalism.’ In The Externalist Challenge, Schantz, R. ed. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, P.J. 2010. ‘Testimonial Entitlement and the Function of Comprehension.’ In Social Epistemology, Haddock, A. Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, P.J. 2011. ‘Intelligent Design and Selective History: Two Sources of Purpose and Plan.’ Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, P.J. forthcoming. ‘Epistemic Entitlement.’ Noûs.Google Scholar
Graham, P.J. manuscript. ‘Perceptual Entitlement and Natural Norms.’Google Scholar
Landesman, C. 2002. Skepticism: The Central Issues. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. 1999. ‘Procedural Epistemology.’ In The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Greco, J. and Sosa, E. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. and Cruz, J. 1999. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Schmitt, F. 1992. Knowledge and Belief. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2003. Epistemic Justification (with Laurence BonJour). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Wright, L. 1973. ‘Functions.’ The Philosophical Review 82: 139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar