Abstract

My main contentions here are as follows. First, Huemer has not provided a satisfactory account of what seemings, in his sense, are. Secondly, consideration of mental states that do not involve any (non-cognitive) qualia provides grounds for concluding that Huemerian seemings do not exist. Thirdly, both versions of Huemer’s Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism suffer from justificatory permissiveness that arises out of failures to distinguish, first, between basic and derived seemings, and, secondly, between qualia-involving and qualia-free seemings. Fourthly, Huemer’s contention that denial of the Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism is self-defeating is clearly mistaken, since one can, using the idea of basic seemings, formulate a Restricted Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism that is, in fact, more plausible that Huemer’s unrestricted principle. Finally, I argue, briefly, that direct awareness or direct acquaintance approaches to the foundations of justification are superior to approaches based on a Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism, either restricted or unrestricted.