Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology

Philosophical Review 104 (4):621 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For some time, it seemed that one had to choose between two sharply different theories of epistemic justification, foundationalism and coherentism. Foundationalists typically held that some beliefs were certain, and, hence, basic. Basic beliefs could impart justification to other, non-basic beliefs, but needed no such support themselves. Coherentists denied that there are any basic beliefs; on their view, all justified beliefs require support from other beliefs. The divide between foundationalism and coherentism has narrowed lately, and Susan Haack attempts to synthesize these competing accounts into a view she calls "foundherentism."

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How much evidence should one collect?Remco Heesen - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (9):2299-2313.
The epistemology of scientific evidence.Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Reply to Commentators. [REVIEW]Susan Haack - 1996 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56 (3):641-656.
Evidence and Inquiry. [REVIEW]Jonathan Vogel - 1995 - Philosophical Review 104 (4):621-623.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-09-07

Downloads
40 (#345,973)

6 months
5 (#244,526)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Jonathan Vogel
Amherst College
Susan Haack
University of Miami

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references