REPLY TO GOLDMAN: CUTTING UP THE ONE TO SAVE THE FIVE IN EPISTEMOLOGY

@article{Berker2015REPLYTG,
  title={REPLY TO GOLDMAN: CUTTING UP THE ONE TO SAVE THE FIVE IN EPISTEMOLOGY},
  author={Selim Berker},
  journal={Episteme},
  year={2015},
  volume={12},
  pages={145 - 153}
}
ABSTRACT I argue that Alvin Goldman has failed to save process reliabilism from my critique in earlier work of consequentialist or teleological epistemic theories. First, Goldman misconstrues the nature of my challenge: two of the cases he discusses I never claimed to be counterexamples to process reliabilism. Second, Goldman's reply to the type of case I actually claimed to be a counterexample to process reliabilism is unsuccessful. He proposes a variety of responses, but all of them either… Expand
11 Citations
No commitment to the truth
  • PDF
The explanatory role of consistency requirements
  • 2
Reconsidering Epistemic Evaluation
Ecumenical epistemic instrumentalism
Can there be a burden of the best explanation?
Can There Be a Burden of the Best Explanation
  • 2
Are There Any Epistemic Consequentialists
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 38 REFERENCES
Strong and Weak Justification
  • 148
RELIABILISM, VERITISM, AND EPISTEMIC CONSEQUENTIALISM
  • 20
The specificity of the generality problem
  • 11
Epistemic folkways and scientific epistemology
  • 144
Epistemic Merit, Intrinsic and Instrumental
  • 15
What is Justified Belief
  • 826
Foundations of social epistemics
  • 69
...
1
2
3
4
...