Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T15:00:11.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ROLE OF REASONS IN EPISTEMOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2015

Hilary Kornblith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion of a reason often plays a central role in epistemological theories. Justification is often explained in terms of the having of appropriate reasons, and a variety of epistemological distinctions are most naturally explained, it seems, by adverting to reasons. This paper examines the extent to which we may, instead, make do without appeal to such a notion. It is argued that the extent to which the notion of a reason should play an important role in epistemological theorizing will depend on how our psychological theories of belief acquisition and belief change are best conceptualized.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Special Issue 2: 10th Anniversary of Episteme , June 2015 , pp. 225 - 239
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Antony, L. 2004. ‘A Naturalized Approach to the A Priori.’ Philosophical Issues, 14: 1–17.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L. 2001. ‘The Indispensability of Internalism.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 47–65.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. 1994. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. ms. ‘Against Debasing Skepticism.’Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1993. ‘What Am I to Believe?’ In Wagner, S. and Warner, R. (eds), Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal, pp. 147–62. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1999. ‘A Priori Warrant and Naturalistic Epistemology.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 1–28.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1970. ‘Induction. A Discussion of the Relevance of the Theory of Knowledge to the Theory of Induction (with a Digression to the Effect that neither Deductive Logic nor the Probability Calculus has Anything to Do with Inference),’ in Swain, M. (ed), Induction, Acceptance, and Rational Belief, pp. 83–99. Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1980. ‘A Priori Knowledge.’ Philosophical Review, LXXXIX: 3–23.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 1980. ‘Beyond Foundationalism and the Coherence Theory.’ Journal of Philosophy, LXXVII: 597–612.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 1989. ‘Introspection and Misdirection.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67: 410–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2002. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2012. On Reflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2013. ‘Naturalism vs. the First-Person Perspective.’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 87: 107–26.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leite, A. 2004. ‘On Justifying and Being Justified.’ Philosophical Issues, 14: 219–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moran, R. 2001. Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rey, G. 1993. ‘The Unavailability of What We Mean: A Reply to Quine and Fodor and Lepore.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien, 46: 61–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. 1998. ‘A Naturalistic A Priori.’ Philosophical Studies, 92: 25–43.Google Scholar
Rips, L. 1994. The Psychology of Proof. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1963. ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind,’ reprinted in Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Shah, N. and Vavova, E. 2014. ‘Review of On Reflection.’ Ethics, 124: 632–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinpreis, R., Anders, K. and Ritzke, D. 1999. ‘The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.’ Sex Roles, 41: 509–28.Google Scholar
Williams, M. 2004. ‘Is Knowledge a Natural Phenomenon?’ In Schantz, R. (ed), The Externalist Challenge, pp. 193–209. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar