Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:46:41.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bursting Bealer's Bubble: How the Starting Points Argument Begs the Question of Foundationalism Against Quine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Michael J. Shaffer  and
Jason A. Warnick
Michael J. Shaffer
Affiliation:
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC28403, USA
Jason A. Warnick
Affiliation:
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC28403, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his 1993 article George Bealer offers three separate arguments that are directed against the internal coherence of empiricism, specifically Quine's version of empiricism. In doing so, Bealer identifies three fundamental principles of Quine's empiricism. First, the principle of empiricism states that:

(i) A person's experiences and/or observations comprise the person's prima facie evidence.

Second, the principle of holism states that:

(ii) A theory is justified (acceptable, more reasonable than its competitors, legitimate, warranted) for a person if and only if it is, or belongs to, the simplest comprehensive theory that explains all, or most, of the person's prima facie evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 87 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

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

Works Cited

Bealer, G. 2000. ‘A Theory of the A Priori.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (2000): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bealer, G. 1993. ‘The Incoherence of Empiricism.’ In Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal, Wagner, S. and Warner, R. eds. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. 2000. New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, L. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bonjour, L. 1998. In Defense o/Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. 2000. ‘The Coherence of Empiricism.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (2000): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherniak, C. 1986. Minimal Rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. 1966. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 2001. ‘Internalism Defended.’ In Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism, Kornblith, H. ed. Maiden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1994. ‘Quine and Naturalized Epistemology.’ In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 19: Philosophical Naturalism, French, P. Uehling, T. and Wettstein, H.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. 1988. Enlightened Empiricism. Gainesville: Tampa University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, S. 1990. ‘Rebuilding the Ship While Sailing on the Water.’ In Perspectives on Quine, Barrett, R. and Gibson, R. ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haack, S. 1990. ‘Epistemology Denatured.’ In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. XIX: Philosophical Naturalism, Barrett, R. and French, P. Uehling, T. Wettstein, H. ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 1974. Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. 1988. Judgment and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1985. ‘States of Mind.’ The Journal of Philosophy. 82 (1985): 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1986. Philosophy of Logic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1990. ‘Comment on Haack.’ In Perspectives on Quine, Barrett, R. and Gibson, R. eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1992. Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O.. 1994. ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’ In Naturalizing Epistemology, Kornblith, H. ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1995. From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. and Ullian, J. 1970. The Web of Belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Shaffer, M.. 2002. ‘Coherence, Justification, and the AGM Theory of Belief Revision.’ In Perspectives on Coherentism, Bouchard, Y. ed. Ontario, Canada: Aylmer-Éditions du Scribe.Google Scholar
Siegel, H. 1984. ‘Empirical Psychology, Naturalized Epistemology and First Philosophy.’ Philosophy of Science. 51 (1984), 667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolhurst, W. 1998. ‘Seemings.’ American Philosophical Quarterly. 35 (1998): 293–302.Google Scholar