Argumentation 10 (1):59-68 (1996)

Abstract
In this paper, we want to explore the connection between premises' being acceptable and their being in some sense justified. The equivalence of premise acceptability and justification seems intuitively correct. But to argue for such a connection, we need to analyze the concepts of acceptability and justification. Such an analysis also seems necessary if this equivalence is to advance our understanding of premise acceptability. Following L. J. Cohen, we may say S believes that p when S is disposed to feel it true that p, while S accepts that p when S takes that p as a premise for further deliberation or action. Reasons for belief are reasons for acceptance, and epistemological (as opposed to pragmatic) reasons for acceptance are reason for belief. Following William P. Alston, we may explicate being a justifying reason for belief through the notion of an adequate ground on which the belief is based. In turn, adequacy of ground means that the mechanism grounding the belief is reliable. Given these notions, we may define a concept of justification in terms of presumptive adequacy
Keywords acceptability  justification  belief  acceptance  based on  ground  adequate ground  reliability  Toulmin model  internalism  externalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00126159
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,564
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Book Review. [REVIEW]Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):101-113.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-04

Total views
20 ( #562,855 of 2,533,484 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #391,480 of 2,533,484 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes