Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 11, pp 2731–2742 | Cite as

Access Problems and explanatory overkill

  • Silvia JonasEmail author


I argue that recent attempts to deflect Access Problems for realism about a priori domains such as mathematics, logic, morality, and modality using arguments from evolution result in two kinds of explanatory overkill: (1) the Access Problem is eliminated for contentious domains, and (2) realist belief becomes viciously immune to arguments from dispensability, and to non-rebutting counter-arguments more generally.


Access Problem Reliability challenge Evolutionary debunking arguments Moral realism Mathematical platonism Modal realism 


  1. Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 730–770.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J., & Hellman, G. (2006). Pluralism and the foundations of mathematics. In S. Kellert, H. Longino, & K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 64–79). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benacerraf, P. (1973). Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy, 60, 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke-Doane, J. (2012). Morality and mathematics: The evolutionary challenge. Ethics, 122, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke-Doane, J. (2014). Moral epistemology: The mathematics analogy. Noûs, 48(2), 238–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke-Doane, J. (2015). Justification and explanation in mathematics and morality. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 10, pp. 80–103). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke-Doane, J. forthcoming (a). What is the Benacerraf problem?. In P. Fabrice (Ed.). New perspectives on the philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, objects, infinity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke-Doane, J. forthcoming (b). Debunking and dispensability. In N. Sinclair & U. Leibowitz (Eds.). Explanation in ethics and mathematics: Debunking and dispensability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Enoch, D. (2009). How is moral disagreement a problem for realism? Ethics, 13, 15–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enoch, D. (2010a). The epistemological challenge to metanormative realism: How best to understand it, and how to cope with it. Philosophical Studies, 148, 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enoch, D. (2010b). Not just a truthometer: Taking oneself seriously (but not too seriously) in cases of peer disagreement. Mind, 119(476), 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics, and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Field, H. (2006). Recent debates about the a priori. Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 69–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, D., & Bering, J. (2006). Hand of god, mind of man: Punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pollock, J., & Joseph, C. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Schechter, J. (2013). Realism, mathematics, and modality. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4, 214–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism—A defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R. (1996). On what possible worlds could not be. In Ways a world might be: Metaphysical and antimetaphysical essays (2003) (pp. 40–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian Dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stroud, B. (1981). Evolution and the necessities of thought. In Meaning, understanding, and practice. 2000 (pp. 52–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Van Leer InstituteJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations