Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 1271–1290 | Cite as

Phenomenal Conservatism and Bergmann’s Dilemma

  • Luca MorettiEmail author
  • Tommaso Piazza
Original Article

Abstract

In this paper we argue that Michael Huemer’s (PC) phenomenal conservatism—the internalist view according to which our beliefs are prima facie justified if based on how things seems or appears to us to be—doesn’t fall afoul of Michael Bergmann’s dilemma for epistemological internalism. We start by showing that the thought experiment that Bergmann adduces to conclude that (PC) is vulnerable to his dilemma misses its target. After that, we distinguish between two ways in which a mental state can contribute to the justification of a belief: the direct way and the indirect way. We identify a straightforward reason for claiming that the justification contributed indirectly is subject to Bergmann’s dilemma. Then we show that the same reason doesn’t extend to the claim that the justification contributed directly is subject to Bergmann’s dilemma. As (PC) is the view that seemings or appearances contribute justification directly, we infer that Bergmann’s contention that his dilemma applies to (PC) is unmotivated. In the final part, we suggest that our line of response to Bergmann can be used to shield other types of internalist justification from Bergmann’s objection. We also propose that seeming-grounded justification can be combined with justification of one of these types to form the basis of a promising version of internalist foundationalism.

Keywords

Justify Belief Epistemic Justification Propositional Justification Internalist Justification Doxastic Justification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for very useful comments and criticism on drafts of this paper to Michael Bergmann, Chris Tucker, a referee of this Journal and audience at the conference Philosophy, Analysis and Public Engagement, University of L’Aquila, 3–5 September 2014. The final draft of this paper was written at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP). The authors thank the MCMP for hosting them and for providing a stimulating atmosphere to conduct this research.

References

  1. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without awareness. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, M. (2013). Phenomenal conservatism and the dilemma for internalism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: New essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 154–178). New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonjour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Crisp, T. (2009). A dilemma for internalism? Synthese, 174, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fumerton, R. (2006). Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Huemer, M. (2007). Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huemer, M. (2013). Phenomenal conservatism. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-con/
  9. McGrath, M. (2013). Phenomenal conservatism and cognitive penetration: The “bad basis” Counterexamples. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: new essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 225–247). New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moretti, L. (2015). Phenomenal conservatism. Forthcoming in Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pollock, J. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Towata, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Nous, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rogers, J., & Matheson, J. (2011). Bergmann’s dilemma: exit strategies for internalists. Philosophical Studies, 152, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tucker, C. (2012). Movin’ on up. Higher-level requirements and inferential justification. Philosophical Studies, 157, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tucker, C. (2013). Seemings and justification: An introduction. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: New essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 1–29). New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig-Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of HumanitiesUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations