Skepticism and the Liberal/Conservative Conceptions of Perceptual Justification

In: International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
View More View Less
  • 1 Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (Tehran)

Login via Institution

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):


Although it is widely recognized that perceptual experience confers justification on the beliefs it gives rise to, it is unclear how its epistemic value should be properly characterized. Liberals hold, and conservatives deny, that the justification conditions of perceptual beliefs merely involve experiences with the same content. The recent debate on this question has, however, seen further fragmentations of the positions involved with the disputants seeking to identify intermediate positions between liberalism and conservatism. In this paper, I suggest a framework to account for the differences and similarities of the positions within the liberalism/conservatism debate. More importantly, I suggest that, instead of focusing on one particular species of conservatism, we should recognize varieties of conservatism. My conclusion is that no theory of justification need be conservative or liberal tout court. Whether a theory of justification is liberal or conservative depends on which dimension of evaluation is taken to be salient. The implications of this finding for the liberalism/conservatism debate are then investigated.

  • Alston W. (1980). “Level Confusions in Epistemology,” 153–72 in Alston (1989).

    • Export Citation
  • ———. (1986). “Epistemic Circularity,” 319–51 in Alston (1989).

  • ———. (1989). Epistemic Justification. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

  • Foley R. (1987). The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Lewis D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • McDowell J. (1982). “Criteria, Defeasibility and Knowledge,” Proceedings of the British Academy 68: 45579.

  • Neta R. (2010). “Liberalism and Conservatism in the Epistemology of Perceptual Belief,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88: 685705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor J. (2000). “The Skeptic and the Dogmatist,” Noûs 34: 51749.

  • ———. (2004). “What’s Wrong with Moore’s Argument?Philosophical Issues 14: 34978.

  • ———. (Forthcoming). “When Warrant Transfers,” in A. Coliva (ed.), Meaning, Knowledge and Mind: Essays in Honour of Crispin Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Silins N. (2008). “Basic Justification and the Moorean Response to the Skeptic,” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 2: 108142.

  • van Inwagen P. (2001). “Two Concepts of Possible Worlds,” 206–43 in Ontology, Identity and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vogel J., (2009). “Internalist Responses to Skepticism,” in Greco J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White R. (2006). “Problems for Dogmatism,” Philosophical Studies 131: 52557.

  • Wright C. (1985). “Facts and Certainty,” Proceedings of the British Academy 71: 42972.

  • ———. (2000). “Cogency and Question-Begging: Some Reflections on McKinsey’s Paradox and Putnam’s Proof,” Philosophical Issues, 10: 14063.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ———. (2002). “(Anti-)Sceptics Simple and Subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 33048.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ———. (2004). “Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free?),” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78: 167212.

  • ———. (2007). “The Perils of Dogmatism,” 25–49 in Nuccetelli S., and Seay G. (eds.), Themes from G. E. Moore. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1

     See, e.g., Wright (1985, 2000, 2002).

  • 4

     See also Neta (2010) for a similar account.

  • 5

     See, for example, Alston (1986).

  • 9

     See, for example, Vogel (2009) and Wright (2007).

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 181 69 1
Full Text Views 144 2 0
PDF Downloads 12 0 0