The sources of scepticism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/10.17533/udea.ef.n60a12Keywords:
belief, closure, epistemological disjunctivism, hinge commitments, knowledge, perception, scepticism, underdetermination, WittgensteinAbstract
It is claimed that the radical sceptical problem that is the focus of much of contemporary epistemological discussion in fact divides into two logically distinct subproblems —a formulation that turns on the closure principle, and a second formulation which turns on the underdetermination principle. The Wittgensteinian account of the structure of rational evaluation is set out, and it is shown how this proposal —at least when properly formulated—can deal with closure-based radical scepticism. It is also claimed, however, that this account fails to gain any purchase on underdetermination-based radical scepticism. The antidote to this latter form of radical scepticism lies elsewhere—with, it is suggested, epistemological disjunctivism.
Downloads
References
Austin, J. L. (1961). Other Minds, En: J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical Papers (pp. 76-116). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bach, K. (1985). A Rationale for Reliabilism. The Monist, 68, 246-63.
Brueckner, A. (1994). The Structure of the Skeptical Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 827-35.
Byrne, A. (2004). How Hard are the Sceptical Paradoxes? Noûs, 38, 299-325.
Cassam, Q. (2007). The Possibility of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S. (1984). Justification and Truth. Philosophical Studies, 46, 279-96.
Cohen, S. (1998). Two Kinds of Sceptical Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 14359.
Coliva, A. (2010). Moore and Wittgenstein: Scepticism, Certainty, and Common Sense. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coliva, A. (2015). Extended Rationality: A Hinge Epistemology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davidson, D. (1983). A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge. En D. Henrich (Ed.), Kant oder Hegel? (pp. 428-38). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic Operators. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 1007-23.
Dretske, F. (2005a). The Case Against Closure. En E. Sosa & M. Steup (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 13-26). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dretske, F. (2005b). Reply to Hawthorne. En E. Sosa & M. Steup (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 43-6). Oxford: Blackwell.
Engel, M. (1992). Personal and Doxastic Justification. Philosophical Studies, 67, 133-51.
Hawthorne, J. (2005). The Case for Closure. En E. Sosa & M. Steup (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 26-43). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kienzler, W. (2006). Wittgenstein and John Henry Newman On Certainty. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 71, 117-38.
Lehrer, K., & Cohen, S. (1983). Justification, Truth, and Coherence. Synthese, 55, 191-207.
Littlejohn, C. (2009). The New Evil Demon Problem. En B. Dowden & J. Fieser (Eds.), Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Disponible en: www.iep.utm.edu/evil-new/
Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDowell, J. (1995). Knowledge and the Internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55, 877-93.
McGinn, M. (1989). Sense and Certainty: A Dissolution of Scepticism. Blackwell: Oxford.
Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2004). Understanding Wittgenstein’s On Certainty. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Newman, J. H. (1979 [1870]). An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Neta, R., & Pritchard, D. H. (2007). McDowell and the New Evil Genius. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 381-96.
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2002). Recent Work on Radical Skepticism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39, 215-57.
Pritchard, D. H. (2005a). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2005b). The Structure of Sceptical Arguments. Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 37-52.
Pritchard, D. H. (2005c). Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and Contemporary Anti-Scepticism. En D. Moyal-Sharrock & W. H. Brenner (Eds.), Investigating On Certainty: Essays on Wittgenstein’s Last Work (pp. 189-224). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pritchard, D. H. (2008). McDowellian Neo-Mooreanism. En A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge (pp. 283-310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2010). Epistemic Relativism, Epistemic Incommensurability and Wittgensteinian Epistemology. En S. Hales (Ed.), Blackwell Companion to Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pritchard, D. H. (2011). Wittgenstein on Scepticism. En O. Kuusela & M. McGinn (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on Wittgenstein (pp. 521-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2012a). Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2012b). Wittgenstein and the Groundlessness of Our Believing. Synthese, 189, 255-72.
Pritchard, D. H. (2013). Davidson on Radical Skepticism. En E. LePore & K. Ludwig (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pritchard, D. H. (2014a). Entitlement and the Groundlessness of Our Believing. En D. Dodd & E. Zardini (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Scepticism and Perceptual Justification, ch. 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2014b). Sceptical Intuitions. En D. Rowbottom & T. Booth (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 213-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2015a). Epistemic Angst: Radical Scepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pritchard, D. H. (2015b). Wittgenstein on Hinges and Radical Scepticism in On Certainty. En H.-J. Glock & J. Hyman (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pritchard, D. H. (2015c). Wittgenstein on Faith and Reason: The In uence of Newman. En M. Szatkowski (Ed.), God, Truth and Other Enigmas. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Schönbaumsfeld, G. (2015). The Illusion of Doubt. Manuscrito no publicado.
Stevenson, L. (2002). Six Levels of Mentality. Philosophical Explorations, 5, 105-24.
Strawson, P. F. (1985). Skepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stroud. B. (1984). The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vogel, J. (1990). Cartesian Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 87, 658-66.
Vogel, J. (2004). Skeptical Arguments. Philosophical Issues, 14, 426-455.
Vogel, J. (2007). Why (Wittgensteinian) Contextualism is not Relativism. Episteme, 4, 93-114.
Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1988). Sobre la certeza, Barcelona: Gedisa.
Wright, C. J. G. (2004). Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free)? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (supp. vol.), 78, 167-212.
Yalçin, Ü. (1992). Sceptical Arguments from Underdetermination. Philosophical Studies, 68, 1-34.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Duncan Pritchard, Vicente Raga Rosaleny
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
