Studies in Epistemology and Cognitive Theory – serie

If asked what Humeanism could mean today, there is no other philosopher to turn to whose work covers such a wide range of topics from a unified Humean perspective as that of David Lewis. The core of Lewis's many contributions to philosophy, including his work in philosophical ontology, intensional logic and semantics, probability and decision theory, topics within philosophy of science as well as a distinguished philosophy of mind, can be understood as the development of philosophical position that is centered around his conception of Humean supervenience. If we accept the thesis that it is physical science and not philosophical reasoning that will eventually arrive at the basic constituents of all matter pertaining to our world, then Humean supervenience is the assumption that all truths about our world will supervene on the class of physical truths in the following sense: There are no truths in any compartment of our world that cannot be accounted for in terms of differences and similarities among those properties and external space-time relations that are fundamental to our world according to physical science.

This book is a defense of realism about truth. The author argues that the most plausible version of realism is a correspondence theory of Truth that takes thought as the primary bearer of truth value. Anti-realists about Truth have seemed to argue that one cannot make sense of a world of 'truth-makers' that exists independently of representations of that world. While it may be true that there is no Truth without minds, one still needs the category of representation—independent fact, the author argues, to serve as truth-maker. In embracing this form of realism, the author does not want to deny the critical role that mind, through its representations, plays in structuring the reality that exists independently of those representations. Furthermore, after distinguishing realism about Truth from various sorts of metaphysical realisms, the author suggests that one can embrace much of anti-realist rhetoric from within the framework of a variety of plausible claims about the way in which minds do and must represent the world.

One of the most influential analytic philosophers of the late twentieth century, William P. Alston is a leading light in epistemology, philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of language. In this volume, twelve leading philosophers critically discuss the central topics of his work in these areas, including perception, epistemic circularity, justification, the problem of religious diversity, and truth. Together with Alston's vigorous responses, these articles make significant new contributions to the literature and will be of interest to a wide range of philosophers and students. In addition, the volume contains a comprehensive introduction and overview of Alston's work and a complete bibliography of his publications

In this wide-ranging collection of never before published essays, distinguished scholars in the fields of philosophy and economics examine such questions as whether testimony is a basic source of knowledge, the degree to which notions of a good argument are determined by speakers and their audiences, the role of individual biases in the development of science, and the social aspects of group belief and group justification. The collection ends with the first comprehensive bibliography of social epistemology.

In this excellent treatment of the internalism-externalism debate in contemporary epistemology, Richard Fumerton explores its implications for traditional skeptical concerns. When one fully understands these implications, Fumerton argues, one will see philosophical usefulness of a foundationalism relying on acquaintance. Contending that the externalist response to skepticism is too quick and easy, Fumerton defends a version of internalism, but in doing so puts into stark relief the radically different alternatives for dealing with skepticism that our metaepistemological views force upon us.

In his widely influential two-volume work, Warrant: The Current Debate and Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga argued that warrant is that which explains the difference between knowledge and true belief. Plantinga not only developed his own account of warrant but also mapped the terrain of epistemology. Motivated by Plantinga's work, fourteen prominent philosophers have written new essays investigating Plantingian warrant and its contribution to contemporary epistemology. The resulting collection, representing a broad array of views, not only gives readers a critical perspective on Plantinga's landmark work, but also provides in one volume a clear statement of the variety of approaches to the nature of warrant within contemporary epistemology, and to the connections between epistemology and metaphysics. Positions covered include internalism and externalism, reliabilism, coherentism and foundationalism, virtue theories, and defensibility theories. Alvin Plantinga responds to the essays in his own contribution.

Blind Realism originated in the deeply felt conviction that the widespread acceptance of Gettier-type counterexamples to the classical definition of knowledge rests in a demonstrably erroneous understanding of the nature of human knowledge. In seeking to defend that conviction, Robert F. Almeder offers a fairly detailed and systematic picture of the nature and limits of human factual knowledge.

"I have no doubt at all, that if philosophy is to prosper in the coming decades, it will have to treat with great seriousness that splendid seriousness that splendid body of philosophical writing of which the essays in this volume constitute one major part". from the Foreword by Alasdair MacIntyre When historians of philosophy turn to the work of distinguished philosopher Frederick L. Will, Pragmatism and Realism will be an important part of the discussion. In this collection of nine essays, Will demonstrates that a social account of human knowledge is consistent with, and ultimately requires, realism. A timely contribution to the current debate, the book culminates in a naturalistic account of the generation, assessment, and revision of cognitive, moral and social norms. It is written clearly enough for undergraduates, and includes a critical introduction by the editor discussing the bearing of Will's views on current debates among analytic epistemologists, philosophers of science, and moral theorists.

Contesting much contemporary epistemology and cognitive science, noted philosopher Kenneth M. Sayre argues that, while some cognitive attitudes such as believing take propositions as objects, there are many others (knowing, hoping, fearing, etc.) whose objects are instead states of affairs. Therefore, knowledge cannot be belief with other factors such as justification added, nor can hope and fear be relations a subject bears to neuronal brain states functioning as propositional representations. To support these claims Sayre undertakes a detailed exploration of belief and knowledge and traces the relations of cognitive attitudes to a network of related concepts like certainty, truth, representation, and intentionality. His findings not only challenge current orthodoxy but open new paths of research in epistemology and cognitive science.

Ancients and moderns alike have constructed arguments and assessed theories on the basis of common sense and intuitive judgments. Yet, despite the important role intuitions play in philosophy, there has been little reflection on fundamental questions concerning the sort of data intuitions provide, how they are supposed to lead us to the truth, and why we should treat them as important. In addition, recent psychological research seems to pose serious challenges to traditional intuition-driven philosophical inquiry. Rethinking Intuition brings together a distinguished group of philosophers and psychologists to discuss these important issues. Students and scholars in both fields will find this book to be of great value.

Ancients and moderns alike have constructed arguments and assessed theories on the basis of common sense and intuitive judgments. Yet, despite the important role intuitions play in philosophy, there has been little reflection on fundamental questions concerning the sort of data intuitions provide, how they are supposed to lead us to the truth, and why we should treat them as important. In addition, recent psychological research seems to pose serious challenges to traditional intuition-driven philosophical inquiry. Rethinking Intuition brings together a distinguished group of philosophers and psychologists to discuss these important issues. Students and scholars in both fields will find this book to be of great value.

Modern epistemology has run into several paradoxes in its efforts to explain how knowledge acquisition can be both socially based (and thus apparently context-relative) and still able to determine objective facts about the world. In this important book, Richmond Campbell attempts to dispel some of these paradoxes, to show how they are ultimately just "illusions of paradox," by developing ideas central to two of the most promising currents in epistemology: feminist epistemology and naturalized epistemology. Campbell's aim is to construct a coherent theory of knowing that is feminist and "naturalized." Illusions of Paradox will be valuable for students and scholars of epistemology and women's studies.

This exciting new edition of the classic Contemporary Theories of Knowledge has been significantly updated to include analyses of the recent literature in epistemology. In addition, a new case is made for the strong connection between epistemology and artificial intelligence, as Pollock and Cruz argue that a necessary condition for the correctness of any epistemological theory is that it be possible to build an implemented artificial intelligence system on the basis of it. Like the first edition, Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, Second Edition is an excellent teaching tool, introducing the reader to the fundamental issues and approaches in the field of epistemology.

The contributions in this volume make an important effort to resurrect a rather old fashioned form of foundationalism. They defend the position that there are some beliefs that are justified, and are not themselves justified by any further beliefs. This Epistemic foundationalism has been the subject of rigorous attack by a wide range of theorists in recent years, leading to the impression that foundationalism is a thing of the past. DePaul argues that it is precisely the volume and virulence of the assaults which points directly to the strength and coherence of the position.

There have been many books over the past decade, including outstanding collections of essays, on the topic of the ethical virtues and virtue-theoretic approaches in ethics. But the professional journals of philosophy have only recently seen a strong and growing interest in the intellectual virtues and in the development of virtue-theoretic approaches in epistemology. There have been four single-authored book length treatments of issues of virtue epistemology over the last seven years, beginning with Ernest Sosa's Knowledge in Perspective (Cambridge, 1991), and extending to Linda Zabzebski's Virtue of the Mind (Cambridge, 1996). Weighing in with Jonathan Kvanvig's The Intellectual Virtues and the Life of the Mind (1992), and James Montmarquet's Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility (1993), Rowman & Littlefield has had a particularly strong interest in the direction and growth of the field. To date, there has been no collection of articles directly devoted to the growing debate over the possibility and potential of a virtue epistemology. This volume exists in the belief that there is now a timely opportunity to gather together the best contributions of the influential authors working in this growing area of epistemological research, and to create a collection of essays as a useful course text and research source. Several of the articles included in the volume are previously unpublished. Several essays discuss the range and general approach of virtue theory in comparison with other general accounts. What advantages are supposed to accrue from a virtue-based account in epistemology, in handling well-known problems such as 'Gettier,' and 'Evil-Genie'-type problems? Can reliabilist virtue epistemology handle skeptical challenges more satisfactorily than non-virtue-centered forms of epistemic reliabilism? Others provide a needed discussion of relevant analogies and disanalogies between ethical and epistemic evaluation. The readings all contribute to our understanding of the relative importance, for a theory of justified belief, of the reliability of our cognitive faculties and of the individual's responsibility in gathering and weighing evidence. Highlights of the readings include direct exchanges between leading exponents of this approach and their critics. In addition, the volume includes contributions from feminist writers who offer a reassessment of the intellectual virtues from witin their own research paradigm.

Defending an original conception of our responsibility for belief and of the relation of such responsibility to moral justification for our actions, James Montmarquet advances a detailed account of certain traits of intellectual character-the epistemic virtues-and of their relation to the responsibility for one's beliefs.

Rationality, Morality, and Self Interest brings together distinguished philosophers from the fields of ethics, action theory, epistemology, and philosophy of the mind who share a common interest in a tangled web of problems associated with reasons for acting, self interest, and morality. They address questions pertaining to the character of human reason and the relation of reason to action and belief. Originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Philosophical Research, the book has been expanded to include several new chapters and authors.

Selected by CHOICE as an Outstanding Academic Book for 1995,

In this wide-ranging collection of never before published essays, distinguished scholars in the fields of philosophy and economics examine such questions as whether testimony is a basic source of knowledge, the degree to which notions of a good argument are determined by speakers and their audiences, the role of individual biases in the development of science, and the social aspects of group belief and group justification. The collection ends with the first comprehensive bibliography of social epistemology.

In this excellent treatment of the internalism-externalism debate in contemporary epistemology, Richard Fumerton explores its implications for traditional skeptical concerns. When one fully understands these implications, Fumerton argues, one will see philosophical usefulness of a foundationalism relying on acquaintance. Contending that the externalist response to skepticism is too quick and easy, Fumerton defends a version of internalism, but in doing so puts into stark relief the radically different alternatives for dealing with skepticism that our metaepistemological views force upon us.

In his widely influential two-volume work, Warrant: The Current Debate and Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga argued that warrant is that which explains the difference between knowledge and true belief. Plantinga not only developed his own account of warrant but also mapped the terrain of epistemology. Motivated by Plantinga's work, fourteen prominent philosophers have written new essays investigating Plantingian warrant and its contribution to contemporary epistemology. The resulting collection, representing a broad array of views, not only gives readers a critical perspective on Plantinga's landmark work, but also provides in one volume a clear statement of the variety of approaches to the nature of warrant within contemporary epistemology, and to the connections between epistemology and metaphysics. Positions covered include internalism and externalism, reliabilism, coherentism and foundationalism, virtue theories, and defensibility theories. Alvin Plantinga responds to the essays in his own contribution.