How to Supplement Mentalist Evidentialism: What Are the Fundamental Epistemological Principles?

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY THEORIA Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-09 DOI:10.1111/theo.12394
Philipp Berghofer
{"title":"How to Supplement Mentalist Evidentialism: What Are the Fundamental Epistemological Principles?","authors":"Philipp Berghofer","doi":"10.1111/theo.12394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often considered the most plausible internalist approach towards epistemic justification. However, mentalist evidentialism does not amount to a comprehensive theory of epistemic justification. In their attempt to complete their epistemological system and to answer the question of <i>why</i> experiences are justifiers, Conee and Feldman supplement mentalist evidentialism with <i>explanationism</i>. They take <i>principles of best explanation</i> to be the fundamental epistemic principles. In this paper, I show that explanationist mentalist evidentialism is plagued by severe shortcomings. What is more, I argue for an alternative in the spirit of Conee and Feldman's internalism that avoids the problems of explanationism, offering a straightforward commonsense account of epistemic justification. The fundamental epistemological principles are <i>phenomenological</i> principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303896/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12394","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often considered the most plausible internalist approach towards epistemic justification. However, mentalist evidentialism does not amount to a comprehensive theory of epistemic justification. In their attempt to complete their epistemological system and to answer the question of why experiences are justifiers, Conee and Feldman supplement mentalist evidentialism with explanationism. They take principles of best explanation to be the fundamental epistemic principles. In this paper, I show that explanationist mentalist evidentialism is plagued by severe shortcomings. What is more, I argue for an alternative in the spirit of Conee and Feldman's internalism that avoids the problems of explanationism, offering a straightforward commonsense account of epistemic justification. The fundamental epistemological principles are phenomenological principles.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何补充心智主义证据论?认识论的基本原则是什么?
证伪主义和心智主义广受欢迎。事实上,心智主义证据论通常被认为是认识论证成的最合理的内部主义方法。然而,心智主义证据论并不等于一个全面的认识论证成理论。为了完善他们的认识论体系,回答为什么经验是正当理由的问题,科尼和费尔德曼对心智主义证据论进行了解释论的补充。他们把最佳解释原则作为认识论的基本原则。在本文中,我证明了解释主义的心智主义证据论存在严重缺陷。此外,我还根据科尼和费尔德曼的内部主义精神,提出了一种可避免解释论问题的替代方案,为认识论的合理性提供了一种直截了当的常识性解释。认识论的基本原则是现象学原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Validity of inferences and validity of demonstrations Prawitz's completeness conjecture: A reassessment On certainty, Left Wittgensteinianism and conceptual change Counterfactual power and genuine choice Whisper words of wisdom: Asides and appositives in Kaplan's logic of demonstratives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1