Sometimes, learning about the origins of a belief can make it irrational to continue to hold that belief—a phenomenon we call ‘genealogical defeat’. According to explanationist accounts, genealogical defeat occurs when one learns that there is no appropriate explanatory connection between one’s belief and the truth. Flatfooted versions of explanationism have been widely and rightly rejected on the grounds that they would disallow beliefs about the future and other inductively-formed beliefs. After motivating the need for some explanationist account, (...) we raise some problems for recent versions of explanationism. Learning from their failures, we then produce and defend a more resilient explanationism. (shrink)

The equal weight view says that if you discover that you disagree with a peer, you should decrease your confidence that you are in the right. Since peer disagreement seems to be quite prevalent, the equal weight view seems to tell us that we cannot reasonably believe many of the interesting things we believe because we can always count on a peer to contest the interesting things that we believe. While the equal weight view seems to have skeptical implications, few (...) epistemologists worry about these implications because the equal weight view is quickly falling out of favor. In this paper, I present an analogical argument for the view and defend it from critics who think that we can justifiably retain confidence in the face of peer disagreement. (shrink)

In his 2009 PSA Recent Ph.D. Award winning contribution to the bi-annual PSA Conference at Pittsburgh in 2008, C. Wu ̈thrich mounted an argument against struc- turalism about space-time in the context of the General Theory of Relativity, to the effect that structuralists cannot discern space-time points. An “abysmal embarrass- ment” for the structuralist, Wu ̈thrich judged. Wu ̈thrich’s characterisation of space-time structuralism is however incorrect. We demonstrate how, on the basis of a correct char- acterisation of space-time structuralism, it (...) is possible to discern space-time points in the GTR-structures under consideration. Thus Wu ̈thrich’s argument crumbles. (shrink)

The goal of this chapter is to disentangle several related—but importantly distinct—notions of evidential defeat. The broadest distinction in the literature on epistemic defeat is that between rebutting and undercutting defeat; very roughly, the idea is that rebutting defeaters provide a “positive” reason to disbelieve the conclusion, whereas an undercutting defeater merely “blocks” existing reasons to believe the conclusion. In this chapter, I formalize these two notions and explore some related (and under-discussed) phenomena such as “hybrid” (...) class='Hi'>defeat (where a single defeater can both rebut and undercut), “bidirectional” defeat (where some information that serves as evidence for a conclusion can become a defeater in the presence of another piece of evidence for the conclusion), and “redundant” defeat (where an undercutting effect is generated by the non-independence of two pieces of information, rather than by the “blocking” phenomenon that occurs in more typical cases of undercutting). (shrink)

Perceptual evidence about the external world is paradigmatically defeasible. If something looks red to you, it is reasonable to believe that it is red, but if you are wearing rose-tinted glasses, it may not be reasonable at all to believe this, unless you have some independent source of evidence. In this paper, I will compare four models for how to understand this phenomenon. These models differ in their answers to two questions: what evidence we get about the external world through (...) perception, and what our having that evidence consists in. I like one of these models better than the others, but in this paper my primary concern will be to compare their virtues and vices. (shrink)

My topic is moderate modal skepticism in the spirit of Peter van Inwagen. Here understood, this is a conservative version of modal empiricism that severely limits the extent to which an ordinary agent can reasonably believe “exotic” possibility claims. I offer a novel argument in support of this brand of skepticism: modal skepticism grounds an attractive (and novel) reply to Humean skepticism. Thus, I propose that modal skepticism be accepted on the basis of its theoretical utility as a tool for (...) dissolving philosophical paradox. (shrink)

The controversy that between 1908 and 1912 saw Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile opposed, on one side, and Federigo Enriques, on the other, did not actually have a conclusive episode, but its end was perceived, for its results on culture, on society and teaching in Italy, as a "defeat" of Enriques. A more careful examination of the events and of the historical context in which it took place seems, however, to clearly demonstrate that we can speak not of a (...) personal defeat of the great mathematician from Livorno, but rather of a defeat of the commendable attempts at cultural and social modernization of Italy in an international perspective, of which Enriques was not the only actor but certainly the most exposed. Such intentions were crushed by the myopic provincial conservatism of the Italian neo-idealism, favored by the fascist regime, concerned only with affirming in the world an alleged autarkic national cultural superiority, based on the traditional literary-humanistic culture, ignoring the progress of the new technical-scientific thought, placed in an international context. Sunto_ La polemica che dal 1908 al 1912 vide contrapposti da una parte Benedetto Croce e Giovanni Gentile e dall’altra Federigo Enriques non ebbe, in realtà, un episodio conclusivo, ma la sua fine è stata percepita, per i suoi esiti sulla cultura, sulla società e sull’insegnamento in Italia, come una “sconfitta” dell’Enriques. Un esame più attento delle vicende e del contesto storico nel quale si svolse sembra, invece, dimostrare chiaramente di poter parlare non di una sconfitta personale del grande matematico livornese, quanto piuttosto di una sconfitta dei lodevoli tentativi di ammodernamento culturale e sociale dell’Italia in una prospettiva internazionale, di cui Enriques non fu l’unico attore ma sicuramente quello più esposto. Tali propositi furono schiacciati dal miope conservatorismo provinciale del neoidealismo italiano, favorito dal regime fascista, preoccupato unicamente di affermare nel mondo una pretesa superiorità culturale nazionale autarchica, basata sulla tradizionale cultura letterario-umanistica, ignorando il progresso del nuovo pensiero tecnico-scientifico, per sua natura, invece, inserito in un contesto internazionale. (shrink)

Trent Dougherty argues (contra Jonathan Matheson) that when taking into consideration the probabilities involving skeptical theism (ST) and gratuitous evils, an agent may reasonably affirm both ST and that gratuitous evils exist. In other words, Dougherty thinks that assigning a greater than.5 probability to ST is insufficient to defeat the commonsense problem of evil. I argue that Dougherty’s response assumes, incorrectly, that ST functions solely as an evidential defeater, and that, when understood as a closure of inquiry defeater, ST (...) may still defeat reasonable belief in gratuitous evils, even in the face of strong evidence that gratuitous evils exist. (shrink)

Preface and Lottery paradoxes have shown that competently deducing a novel conclusion from multiple justified premises does not necessarily result in a justified belief. However, those paradoxes do not arise if only a single premise is used. Yet, in recent years, justification closure for single premise deduction has also been challenged. Schechter has presented a case that, according to him, thwarts any attempt to formulate a general principle that links competent single premise deduction to justification. This paper develops a justification (...) closure principle for single premise deduction that accommodates Schechter’s case, thus showing that his pessimism regarding the possibility of such principles is mistaken. I also argue that an alternative reply to Schechter’s case fails and that safeguarding justification closure constitutes progress for establishing knowledge closure for single premise deduction. (shrink)

Recent years have seen the rise of a new family of non-probabilistic accounts of epistemic justification. According to these views—we may call them Normalcy Views—a belief in P is justified only if, given the evidence, there exists no normal world in which S falsely beliefs that P. This paper aims to raise some trouble for this new approach to justification by arguing that Normalcy Views, while initially attractive, give rise to problematic accounts of epistemic defeat. As we will see, (...) on Normalcy Views seemingly insignificant pieces of evidence turn out to have considerable defeating powers. This problem—I will call it the Easy-Defeat Problem—gives rise to a two-pronged challenge. First, it shows that the Normalcy View has counterintuitive implications and, second, it opens the door to an uncomfortable skeptical threat. (shrink)

It is widely considered a truism that the only evidence that can provide justification for one's belief that p is evidence in one's possession. At the same time, a good many epistemologists accept another claim seemingly in tension with this "truism," to the effect that evidence not in one's possession can defeat or undermine the justification for one's belief that p. Anyone who accepts both of these claims accepts what I will call the asymmetry thesis: while evidence in one's (...) possession can either enhance or detract from justification, evidence not in one's possession can only detract from it. The asymmetry thesis is not uncontroversial; but any epistemologist who endorses the doctrine of normative defeat will be under tremendous pressure to accept it. In this paper I try to motivate the asymmetry thesis in two steps: first, by appeal to a feature that assessments of justification share with evaluative assessments generally, according to which we can distinguish generic expectations in play from the explicit criteria for satisfying the relevant evaluative standard; and second, by arguing that when it comes to epistemic assessments, the generic expectations themselves derive from our roles as epistemic agents in communities in which we depend on one another for knowledge. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Phenomenal Conservatism (PC) is not superior to alternative theories of basic propositional justification insofar as those theories that reject PC are self-defeating. I show that self-defeat arguments similar to Michael Huemer’s Self-Defeat Argument for PC can be constructed for other theories of basic propositional justification as well. If this is correct, then there is nothing special about PC in that respect. In other words, if self-defeat arguments can be advanced in support (...) of alternatives to PC, then Huemer’s Self-Defeat argument doesn’t uniquely motivate PC. (shrink)

Reflection on the history of skepticism shows that philosophers have often conjoined as a single doctrine various theses that are best kept apart. Some of these theses are incredible – literally almost impossible to accept – whereas others seem quite plausible, and even verging on the platitudinous. Mixing them together, one arrives at a view – skepticism – that is as a whole indefensible. My aim is to pull these different elements apart, and to focus on one particular strand of (...) skepticism that deserves sustained and respectful attention. The strand I have in mind I will refer to as epistemic defeatism. Roughly, in its most global form, it is the view that, in the final analysis, we have no good evidence for the truth of any proposition. Working through various historical texts, I attempt to untangle epistemic defeatism from neighboring views, and in particular to establish its independence from questions about knowledge. Having thus established the view's autonomy, I turn to the options for self-consciously accepting defeat. One may despair or one may have faith. But I will ultimately propose that the most attractive option – the option that preserves the most of our epistemic integrity – is to have hope. (shrink)

According to John D. Norton's Material Theory of Induction, all inductive inferences are justified by local facts, rather than their formal features or some grand principles of nature's uniformity. Recently, Richard Dawid (Found Phys 45(9):1101–1109, 2015) has offered a challenge to this theory: in an adaptation of Norton's own celebrated "Dome" thought experiment, it seems that there are certain inductions that are intuitively reasonable, but which do not have any local facts that could serve to justify them in accordance with (...) Norton's requirements. Dawid's suggestion is that “raw induction” might have a limited but important role for such inferences. I argue that the Material Theory can accommodate such inductions, because there are local facts concerning the combinatoric features of the induction’s target populations that can licence the inferences in an analogous way to existing examples of material induction. Since my arguments are largely independent of the details of the Dome, Norton's theory emerges as surprisingly robust against criticisms of excessive narrowness. (shrink)

Many philosophers have noted that normative error theorists appear to be committed to saying ‘Error theory is true, but I have no reason to believe it’, which seems paradoxical. In defence of error...

This is a reply to Jon Matheson on conciliationism and the self-defeat objection. I argue that the problems that Matheson discusses derive from his evidentialist assumptions, not from conciliationism.

The Laozi, the classical text of Daoist philosophy, teaches that all opposites exist in balance—light and dark, hard and soft, male and female. Why, then, does the text nevertheless seem to take sides? This article explores that paradox with unexpected help from a Welsh singer-songwriter and a Hong Kong kung fu legend. Their words cast surprising new light on an age-old problem, bringing it vividly to life for a modern audience.

Mainstream political liberals hold that state coercion is legitimate only if it is justified on the grounds of reasons that all may reasonably be expected to accept. Critics argue that this public justification principle is self-defeating, because it depends on moral justifications that not all may reasonably be expected to accept. To rebut the self-defeat objection, I elaborate on the following disjunction: one either agrees or disagrees that it is wrong to impose one’s morality on others by the coercive (...) power of the state. Those who disagree reject PJP, they understand politics as war. Those who agree accept PJP, they understand politics as competition. Political competitors abide by PJP to avoid politics as war, by enforcing PJP on political combatants they engage in a war that is unavoidable. In both cases their exercise of political power has a justification that is reasonably acceptable to all. (shrink)

Here I present and defend an etiological theory of objective, doxastic justification, and related theories of defeat and evidence. The theory is intended to solve a problem for reliabilist epistemologies— the problem of identifying relevant environments for assessing a process's reliability. It is also intended to go some way to accommodating, neutralizing, or explaining away many internalist-friendly elements in our epistemic thinking.

We offer a critical evaluation of a recent proposal of E. Tal and J. Comesa\~na on the topic of when evidence of evidence constitutes evidence. After establishing that attempts of L. Moretti and W. Roche to discredit the proposal miss their mark, we fashion another, which does not.

The phenomenon of epistemic defeat from testimony about aesthetic matters has received little to no attention in the literature. This paper supplies this lack: we argue that the existence of testimonial defeat about aesthetic matters gives us reason to prefer a realist view in the semantic of aesthetic discourse, in conjunction with optimism about the epistemology of aesthetic testimony.

Philosophical Issues, Volume 30, Issue 1, Page 192-204, October 2020.

This chapter develops a novel Neo-Moorean view. The view falls squarely within the Radical Neo-Moorean camp, in that it holds that closure holds unrestrictedly, warrant transmits through Moore’s inference, and that there is nothing wrong – epistemically or dialectically – with Moore’s argument. Nevertheless, the account is superior to extant Radical Neo-Mooreanisms in explanatory power: it explains both the precise variety of epistemic failure exhibited by the sceptic, and the intuition of reasonableness when it comes to the sceptic’s resistance to (...) Moore’s argument. It does so in terms of epistemic functions and contrary-to-duty obligations. (shrink)

The phenomenon of defeat is hot in epistemology. However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to defeat in the semantics of aesthetic discourse and aesthetic epistemology. We think that this is a lack that needs supplying. Here, we argue for a conditional claim: if epistemic defeat about aesthetic matters—what we will call, for convenience, aesthetic defeat—exists, this gives us (pro tanto) reason to worry about several views in the semantics of aesthetic discourse—to wit, contextualism and relativism—and (...) one major player in the epistemology of aesthetic testimony—i.e. pessimism about the capacity of aesthetic testimony to generate knowledge. None of these can straightforwardly accommodate aesthetic defeat. The alternative is to endorse scepticism about aesthetic defeat; however, there is reason to believe the latter move is highly implausible. We conclude that the theorist of aesthetic discourse is faced with a choice between either being a realist about the semantics and an optimist about the epistemology, or coming up with a thorough defence of defeat scepticism. (shrink)

Bandyopadhyay, Taper, and Brittan advance a measure of evidential support that first appeared in the statistical and philosophical literature four decades ago and have been extensively discussed since. I have argued elsewhere, however, that it is vulnerable to a simple counterexample. BTB claim that the counterexample is flawed because it conflates evidence with confirmation. In this reply, I argue that the counterexample stands, and is fatal to their theory.

Logicism as a philosophical enterprise died a sudden and unnatural death in the early 1930s. The logicist program was an attempt to secure our mathematical knowledge in the indubitable bedrock of oura priorilogical intuitions. It was a program very much impressed by the remarkable achievements in formal logic and axiomatics in the early century. While that program is well dead and gone, a research program within artificial intelligence (AI) has come to be known by the same name, sharing with its (...) homonymous predecessor at least that program’s esteem for logic.Logicism in AI, briefly, is the view that prerequisite to developing an artificially intelligent system we must find means for representing and reasoning with a vast store of prepositional knowledge and that the only viable candidates for representing prepositional knowledge are formal logics (and their associated formal languages). (shrink)

Bandyopadhyay, Taper, and Brittan (BTB) advance a measure of evidential support that first appeared in the statistical and philosophical literature four decades ago and have been extensively discussed since. I have argued elsewhere, however, that it is vulnerable to a simple counterexample. BTB claim that the counterexample is flawed because it conflates evidence with confirmation. In this reply, I argue that the counterexample stands, and is fatal to their theory.

Despite its significant development, the movement of the councils faced the distrust of both the party and the trade union. In this context, L’Ordine Nuovo should favor the autonomy of internal commissions and turn them into workers’ effective self-government institutions so as to rescue them from the bureaucratic practice in which the trade union appointed commissioners and defined the political line. This major reorganization of councils should have led to the election of commissioners by all workers, who did not need (...) to be all unionized, and to the transformation of committees into institutions of workers’ representation by productive unit and structured around department or workshop divisions. The commission had to overcome the condition of an institution of generic representation of leaders and prepare for a new role: to take control of production. Thus, the system of councils would transform the concept of representation, no longer structured around territorial bases and principles, valuing the productive unit. (shrink)

It has been contended that it is unjustified to believe, as Weyl did, that formalism's victory against intuitionism entails a defeat of the phenomenological approach to mathematics. The reason for this contention, recently put forth by Paolo Mancosu and Thomas Ryckman, is that, unlike intuitionistic Anschauung, phenomenological intuition could ground classical mathematics. I argue that this indicates a misinterpretation of Weyl's view, for he did not take formalism to prevail over intuitionism with respect to grounding classical mathematics. I also (...) point out that the contention is false: if intuitionism fails, in the way Weyl thought it did, i.e. with respect to supporting scientific objectivity, then one should also reject the phenomenological approach, in the same respect. (shrink)

This chapter develops a novel Neo-Moorean view. The view falls squarely within the Radical Neo-Moorean camp, in that it holds that closure holds unrestrictedly, warrant transmits through Moore’s inference, and that there is nothing wrong – epistemically or dialectically – with Moore’s argument. Nevertheless, the account is superior to extant Radical Neo-Mooreanisms in explanatory power: it explains both the precise variety of epistemic failure exhibited by the sceptic, and the intuition of reasonableness when it comes to the sceptic’s resistance to (...) Moore’s argument. It does so in terms of epistemic functions and contrary-to-duty obligations. (shrink)