Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T23:17:30.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLANATIONIST EVIDENTIALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2013

Kevin McCain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their most recent co-authored work, Conee and Feldman (2008) suggest that epistemic support should be understood in terms of best explanations. Although this suggestion is plausible, Conee and Feldman admit that they have not provided the necessary details for a complete account of epistemic support. This article offers an explanationist account of epistemic support of the kind that Conee and Feldman suggest. It is argued that this account of epistemic support yields the intuitively correct results in a wide variety of cases. Further, this explanationist account of epistemic support is not susceptible to objections that Lehrer (1974) and Goldman (2011) have raised for similar accounts of epistemic support.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 299 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bealer, George. 2000. “A Theory of the A Priori.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 81: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, James. 2009. “The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79: 605–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, William F., Chinn, Clark A., and Samarapungavan, Ala. 2000. “Explanation in Scientists and Children.” In Frank Keil and Robert A. Wilson (eds), Explanation and Cognition, pp. 279–98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl. 1998. “Seeing the Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58: 847–57.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard. 2004. Evidentialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard 2008. “Evidence.” In Smith, Quentin (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 83–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard 2011. “Replies.” In Dougherty, Trent (ed.), Evidentialism and its Discontents, pp. 283–323. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cullison, Andrew. 2010. “What are Seemings?” Ratio, 23: 260–74.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Conee, Earl. 1985. “Evidentialism.” Philosophical Studies, 48: 15–34.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Conee, Earl 2001. “Internalism Defended.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 38: 1–18.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard 2004. “Epistemic Probability.” Philosophical Issues, 14: 149–64.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard 2005. “Speckled Hens and Objects of Acquaintance.” Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 121–38.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 2011. “Toward a Synthesis of Reliabilism and Evidentialism? Or: Evidentialism's Troubles, Reliabilism's Rescue Package.” In Dougherty, Trent (ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents, pp. 254–80. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, Alison. 1998. “Explanation as Orgasm.” Minds and Machines, 8: 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, John. 1999. “Agent Reliabilism.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 273–96.Google Scholar
Greco, John 2000. Putting Skeptics in Their Place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1973. Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert 1986. Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2001. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael 2007. “Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 30–55.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. 2006. “Explanation and Understanding.” Annual Review of Psychology, 57: 227–54.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, Jarrett. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.” Journal of Philosophy, 88: 449–72.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith. 1974. Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lycan, William. 1988. Judgement and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, William 2002. “Explanation and Epistemology.” In Moser, Paul (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, pp. 408–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markie, Peter. Forthcoming. “Rational Intuition and Understanding.” Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Matheson, Jonathan. 2009. “Conciliatory Views of Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.” Episteme, 6: 269–79.Google Scholar
McCain, Kevin. 2012. “Against Hanna on Phenomenal Conservatism.” Acta Analytica, 27: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Paul. 1989. Knowledge and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, James. 2000. “The Skeptic and the Dogmatist.” Nous, 34: 517–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V Orman, and Ullian, Joseph S. 1978. The Web of Belief, 2nd Edition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1989. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. 1978. “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice.” Journal of Philosophy, 75: 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollhurst, William. 1998. “Seemings.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 35: 293–302.Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris. 2010. “Why Open-Minded People Should Endorse Dogmatism.” Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 529–45.Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris 2012. “Movin' on Up: Higher-level Requirements and Inferential Justification.” Philosophical Studies, 157: 323–40.Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris Forthcoming. “Seemings and Justification: An Introduction.” In Tucker, Chris (ed.), Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism, pp. 1–25. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan. 1990. “Cartesian Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation.” Journal of Philosophy, 87: 658–66.Google Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan 2005. “The Refutation of Skepticism.” In Steup, Matthias and Sosa, Ernest (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 72–84. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan 2008. “Internalist Responses to Skepticism.” In Greco, John (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, pp. 533–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar