Philosophical Studies

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 579–589

Epistemically self-defeating arguments and skepticism about intuition


DOI: 10.1007/s11098-012-9870-2

Cite this article as:
Silva, P. Philos Stud (2013) 164: 579. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9870-2


An argument is epistemically self-defeating when either the truth of an argument’s conclusion or belief in an argument’s conclusion defeats one’s justification to believe at least one of that argument’s premises. Some extant defenses of the evidentiary value of intuition have invoked considerations of epistemic self-defeat in their defense. I argue that there is one kind of argument against intuition, an unreliability argument, which, even if epistemically self-defeating, can still imply that we are not justified in thinking intuition has evidentiary value.


IntuitionPhilosophical methodologyJustificationSkepticismSelf-defeating arguments

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA