Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T09:17:07.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY, RELIABILISM, AND TRANSMISSION FAILURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2014

Patrick Bondy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epistemically circular arguments have been receiving quite a bit of attention in the literature for the past decade or so. Often the goal is to determine whether reliabilists (or other foundationalists) are committed to the legitimacy of epistemically circular arguments. It is often assumed that epistemic circularity is objectionable, though sometimes reliabilists accept that their position entails the legitimacy of some epistemically circular arguments, and then go on to affirm that such arguments really are good ones. My goal in this paper is to argue against the legitimacy of epistemically circular arguments. My strategy is to give an argument against the legitimacy of epistemically circular arguments, which rests on a principle of basis-relative safety, and then to argue that reliabilists do not have the resources to resist the argument. I argue that even if the premises of an epistemically circular argument enjoy reliabilist justification, the argument does not transmit that justification to its conclusion. The main goal of my argument is to show that epistemic circularity is always a bad thing, but it also has the positive consequence that reliabilists are freed from an awkward commitment to the legitimacy of some intuitively bad arguments.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 335 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Alston, W. 1993. The Reliability of Sense Perception. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Alston, W.. 1995. ‘How to Think About Reliability.’ Philosophical Topics, 23: 1–29. Reprinted in E. Sosa and J. Kim (eds), Epistemology: An Anthology, pp. 354–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. 2013. ‘Why Reliabilism does not Permit Easy Knowledge.’ Synthese, 190: 3751–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M. 2006. Justification Without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. 2010. ‘Why the Generality Problem is Everybody's Problem.’ Philosophical Studies, 151: 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 2002. ‘Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65: 309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S.. 2010. ‘Bootstrapping, Defeasible Reasoning, and A Priori Justification.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. 2013. ‘The Specificity of the Generality Problem.’ Philosophical Studies, 163: 751–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 1998. ‘The Generality Problem for Reliabilism.’ Philosophical Studies, 89: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comesaña, J. 2006. ‘A Well-Founded Solution to the Generality Problem.’ Philosophical Studies, 129: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, R. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A.. 1988. ‘Strong and Weak Justification.’ In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 13, pp. 127–41. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview. Reprinted in A. Goldman, Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1992).Google Scholar
Goldman, A.. 2008. Reliabilism. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2009 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/Google Scholar
Hofmann, F. 2013. ‘Three Kinds of Reliabilism.’ Philosophical Explorations, 16: 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallestrup, J. 2009. ‘Reliabilist Justification: Basic, Easy, and Brute.’ Acta Analytica, 24: 155–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallestrup, J.. 2012. ‘Bootstrap and Rollback: Generalizing Epistemic Circularity.’ Synthese, 189: 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2009. ‘A Reliabilist Solution to the Problem of Promiscuous Bootstrapping.’ Analysis, 69: 263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. and Cruz, J. 1999. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, 2nd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. 1971. ‘Begging the Question, 1971.’ Analysis, 31: 113–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer-Landau, R. 2009. ‘A Defense of Categorical Reasons.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 109: 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turri, J. 2010. ‘On the Relationship between Propositional and Doxastic Justification.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80: 312–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. 2000. ‘Reliabilism Levelled.’ Journal of Philosophy 97: 602–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J.. 2008. ‘Epistemic Bootstrapping.’ Journal of Philosophy 105: 518–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. 2010. ‘Bootstrapping in General.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 525–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar