Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:20:17.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Reliabilism and the Replacement Thesis in Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Andrei A. Buckareff
Andrei A. Buckareff
Affiliation:
Marist College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their recent book, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment, M. Bishop and J. D. Trout have challenged Standard Analytic Epistemology (SAE) in all its guises and have endorsed a version of the “replacement thesis”—proponents of which aim at replacing the standard questions of SAE with psychological questions. In this article I argue that Bishop and Trout offer an incomplete epistemology that, as formulated, cannot address many of the core issues that motivate interest in epistemological questions to begin with, and so is not a fit replacement.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 47 , Issue 3-4 , Summer-Fall 2008 , pp. 425 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2008

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

Aiken, Scott 2006 “Modest Evidentialism.” International Philosophical Quarterly, 46: 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Michael, and Trout, J. D. 2005a Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Michael, and Trout, J. D. 2005b “The Pathologies of Standard Analytic Epistemology.” Noûs, 39: 696–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckareff, Andrei 2006 Review of Michael Bishop and J. D. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 19: 847–51.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard 2004 “The Generality Problem for Reliabilism.” Reprinted in their Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard 1999 “Methodological Naturalism in Epistemology.” In The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Edited by Greco, J. and Sosa, E.. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 170–86.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard 2004 “The Ethics of Belief.” Reprinted in Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 166–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Conee, Earl 2004 “Evidentialism.” Reprinted in their Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alan 2005 Review of Michael Bishop and J. D. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, URL = <http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=2701>..>Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin 1979 “What Is Justified Belief?” In Justification and Knowledge. Edited by Pappas, G.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 271–93.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin 1988 Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, John 1992 “Believing Reasonably.” Nous, 26: 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary 1994 “Introduction: What Is Naturalistic Epistemology?” In Naturalizing Epistemology. Edited by Kornblith, H.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Pollock, John L., and Cruz, Joseph 1999 Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. 2nd ed.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman 1994 “Epistemology Naturalized.” Reprinted in Naturalizing Epistemology. Edited by Kornblith, H.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Jonathan Forthcoming Review of Michael Bishop and J. D. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar