TWO NEW OBJECTIONS TO EXPLANATIONISM

Episteme, 2013

In their most recent co-authored work Earl Conee and Richard Feldman (2008) suggest that epistemic support should be understood in terms of best explanations. Although this suggestion is plausible, Conee and Feldman admit that they have not provided the necessary details for a complete account of epistemic support. This paper offers an explanationist account of epistemic support of the kind that Conee and Feldman suggest. It is argued that this account of epistemic support yields the intuitively correct results in a wide variety of cases. Further, this explanationist account of epistemic support is not susceptible to objections Keith and Alvin Goldman (2011) have raised for similar accounts of epistemic support.

Logos & Episteme, 2015

Explanationists about epistemic justification hold that justification depends upon explanatory considerations. After a bit of a lull, there has recently been a resurgence of defenses of such views. Despite the plausibility of these defenses, explanationism still faces challenges. Recently, T. Ryan Byerly and Kraig Martin have argued that explanationist views fail to provide either necessary or sufficient conditions for epistemic justification. I argue that Byerly and Martin are mistaken on both accounts.

Logos & Episteme, 2017

Explanationism is a plausible view of epistemic justification according to which justification is a matter of explanatory considerations. Despite its plausibility, explanationism is not without its critics. In a recent issue of this journal T. Ryan Byerly and Kraig Martin have charged that explanationism fails to provide necessary or sufficient conditions for epistemic justification. In this article I examine Byerly and Martin's arguments and explain where they go wrong.

Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2016

Evidentialism says that a subject S’s justification is entirely determined by S’s evidence. The plausibility of evidentialism depends on (1) what kind of entities constitute a subject S’s evidence and (2) what one takes the support relation to consist in. Conee and Feldman’s mainstream evidentialism (ME) incorporates a psychologist answer to (1) and an explanationist answer to (2). ME naturally accommodates perceptual justification. However, it does not accommodate intuitive cases of inferential justification. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reject a reply based on a refined explanationist theory of the support relation proposed by K McCain.

Logos & Episteme, 2016

We argue that explanationist views in epistemology continue to face persistent challenges to both their necessity and their sufficiency. This is so despite arguments offered by Kevin McCain in a paper recently published in this journal which attempt to show otherwise. We highlight ways in which McCain's attempted solutions to problems we had previously raised go awry, while also presenting a novel challenge for all contemporary explanationist views.

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2007

Synthese

In a recent paper, Appley and Stoutenburg present two new objections to Explanationist Evidentialism (EE): the Regress Objection and the Threshold Objection. In this paper, I develop a version of EE that is independently plausible and empirically grounded, and show that it can meet Appley and Stoutenburg's objections. Forthcoming in Synthese.

Erkenntnis, 2016

Recent attempts to reconcile the ontic and epistemic approaches to explanation propose that our best explanations simply fulfill epistemic and ontic norms simultaneously. I aim to upset this armistice. Epistemic norms of attaining general and systematic explanations are, I argue, autonomous of ontic norms: they cannot be fulfilled simultaneously or in simple conjunction with ontic norms, and plausibly have priority over them. One result is that central arguments put forth by ontic theorists against epistemic theorists are revealed as not only question-begging, but ultimately self-defeating. Another result is that a more nuanced reconciliation of the epistemic and ontic views is required: we should regard good explanatory practice as a dynamic process with distinct phases of epistemic and ontic success.

2017

Endriss Justify This! The Roles of Epistemic Justification 2 [J]ustification is primarily a status which knowledge can confer on beliefs that look good in its light without themselves amounting to knowledge. Timothy Williamson(2000),p. 9. 0. BACKGROUND Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. 1 And suppose that Smith has strong evidence for the following conjunctive proposition: (i) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith's evidence for (i) might be that the president of the company assured him that Jones would in the end be selected, and that he, Smith, had counted the coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago. Proposition (i) implies: (ii) The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. Let us further suppose that Smith sees the implication from (i) to (ii) and accepts (ii) on the grounds of (i), for which he has strong evidence. In this case, Smith is clearly justified in believing that (ii) is true. But imagine, further, that unknown to Smith, he himself, not Jones, will get the job. And, also, unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his pocket. Proposition (ii) is then true, though proposition (i), from which Smith inferred (ii), is false. In our example, then, all of the following are true: (ii) is true, Smith believes that (ii) is true, and Smith is justified in believing that (ii) is true. But it is equally clear that Smith does not know that (ii) is true; for (ii) is true in virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief in 1 The following case study is taken directly from Edmund Gettier's (1963/2008) "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Some minor changes have been made to remove elements of the original language that are unnecessary for this paper. Endriss Justify This! The Roles of Epistemic Justification

2014

This book develops a novel explanatory coherentist account of epistemic justification. Poston argues that recent developments in epistemology allow for a reassessment of the coherentist epistemologies of Quine, Sellars, and Harman. Poston uses these developments to reformulate a new theory of explanatory cohernetism, arguing that the justification of a subject's belief consists in the explanatory virtues of the entire set of the subject's beliefs. Poston's argument for explanatory coherentism involves a defense of the epistemic value of background beliefs, the development of a novel framework view of reasons, and the articulation of a mentalist, evidentialist account of explanatory coherentism. Poston also argues against foundationalist attempts to ground facts about justification in sense experience. He extends the argument against foundationalism by examining how a priori justification consists in one's overall explanatory position. Finally, Poston articulates a compatiblist position regarding the relationship between inference to the best explanation and Bayesianism.