, Volume 189, Issue 2, pp 273–295 | Cite as

Justified inference



This paper proposes a general account of the epistemological significance of inference. This account rests on the assumption that the concept of a “justified” belief or inference is a normative concept. It also rests on a conception of belief that distinguishes both (a) between conditional and unconditional beliefs and (b) between enduring belief states and mental events of forming or reaffirming a belief, and interprets all of these different kinds of belief as coming in degrees. Conceptions of “rational coherence” and “competent inference” are then formulated, in terms of the undefeated instances of certain rules of inference. It is proposed that (non-accidental) rational coherence is a necessary and sufficient condition of justified enduring belief states, while competent inference always results in a justified mental event of some kind. This proposal turns out to tell against the view that there are any non-trivial cases of “warrant transmission failure”. Finally, it is explained how these proposals can answer the objections that philosophers have raised against the idea that justified belief is “closed” under competent inference.


Justification Inference Rationality Normativity Internalism Belief Coherence Coherentism Foundationalism Warrant transmission 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Audi R. (2001) The architecture of reason. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Christensen D. (2010) Higher-order evidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edgington D. (1995) On conditionals. Mind 104: 235–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedman, J. (2011). Suspended judgment. Philosophical Studies, Online First (25 June), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9753-y.
  5. Hall N. (1994) Correcting the guide to objective chance. Mind 103: 505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harman G. (1986) Change in view: Principles of reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson F. (1985) On the semantics and logic of obligation. Mind 94: 177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joyce J.M. (2009) Accuracy and coherence: Prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial belief. In: Huber F., Schmidt-Petri C. (eds) Degrees of belief, Synthese Library Vol. 342. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–297Google Scholar
  9. Kyburg H. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CTGoogle Scholar
  10. Lasonen-Aarnio M. (2008) Single premise deduction and risk. Philosophical Studies 141: 157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. K. (1986). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. Reprinted with postscripts in Lewis, Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 83–113). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Moore G. E. (1939) Proof of an external world. Proceedings of the British Academy 25: 273–300Google Scholar
  13. Plantinga A. (1993) Warrant: The current debate. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schechter, J. (2011). Rational self-doubt and the failure of closure. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.10071/s11098-011-9823-1.
  15. Turri J. (2010) On the relationship between propositional and doxastic justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80: 312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wedgwood R. (2002a) Internalism explained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wedgwood R. (2002b) Practical reason and desire. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80: 345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wedgwood R. (2006) The internal and external components of cognition. In: Stainton R. (eds) Contemporary debates in cognitive science. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 307–325Google Scholar
  19. Wedgwood R. (2007) The nature of normativity. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wedgwood R. (2011) Primitively rational belief-forming processes. In: Reisner A., Steglich-Petersen A. (eds) Reasons for belief. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 180–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright C. (1985) Facts and certainty. Proceedings of the British Academy 71: 429–472Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations