Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 345–352 | Cite as

Epistemic foundationalism

  • David B. Annis
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Moritz Schlick, ‘The Foundations of Knowledge’, inLogical Positivism (ed. by A. J. Ayer), The Free Press, New York, 1959, pp. 209–227. A. J. Ayer inThe Foundations of Empirical Knowledge, Macmillan, London, 1940, chap. 2 and ‘Basic Propositions’, inPhilosophical Analysis (ed. by M. Black), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, pp. 57–70 held that basic statements were incorrigible in the sense that they were not open to any nonverbal error. He retracts this view inThe Problem of Knowledge, Penquin Books, London, 1956, pp. 61–68.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertrand Russell,An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1940, pp. 155–156.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. I. Lewis,An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, Open Court, LaSalle, Illinois, 1946. See especially chaps. 7 and 11. Compare Russell's discussion of memory inAn Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, pp. 192–202. For a discussion of Lewis's foundationalism see Roderick Firth, ‘Coherence, Certainty, and Epistemic Priority’,Journal of Philosophy LXI (1964) 545–57 and Mark Pastin, ‘C. I. Lewis's Radical Foundationalism’,Nous IX (1975) 407–420.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. I. Lewis,An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, chap. 11. Compare H. H. Price,Perception, Metheun, London, 1932, chap. 7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson Goodman, ‘Sense and Certainty’,Philosophical Review LXI (1952) 160–67. See also Roderick Firth, ‘Coherence, Certainty, and Epistemic Priority’.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicholas Rescher, ‘Foundationalism, Coherentism, and the Idea of Cognitive Systematization’,Journal of Philosophy LXXI (1974) 698.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For attacks on rather strong versions of foundationalism see John Austin,Sense and Sensibilia, Oxford University Press, London, 1962. Nicholas Rescher,The Coherence Theory of Truth, Oxford University Press, London, 1973, and his ‘Foundationalism, Coherentism, and the Idea of Cognitive Systematization’. Bruce Aune,Knowledge, Mind, and Nature, Random House, New York, 1967, chap. II. Frederick L. Will,Induction and Justification, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1974. Keith Lehrer,Knowledge, Oxford University Press, London, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertrand Russell,The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1959, first published 1912, pp. 22–26.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. H. Price,Perception, chap. 7. C. I. Lewis,An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, chap. 11. Roderick Chisholm,Theory of Knowledge, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966, chap. 3. Chisholm's theory of evidence was criticized by Herbert Heidelberger, ‘Chisholm's Epistemic Principles’,Nous III (1969) 73–82. Chisholm's response occurs in ‘On the Nature of Empirical Evidence’, inEvidence and Theory (ed. by L. Foster and J. W. Swanson), University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1970, pp. 103–135. For further criticism of Chisholm's theory see Richard Hall, ‘Chisholm's Epistemic Principles’, paper presented at the American Philosophical Association Meetings held in Washington, D. C., in December, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charles Saunders Peirce, ‘The Fixation of Belief’, inCollected Papers of Charles Saunders Peirce (ed. by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960, vol. V, pp. 223–47. Karl Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, 1959, chap. v. J. L. Austin,Sense and Sensibilia, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, chap. x. See also A. M. Quinton, ‘The Problem of Perception’,Mind LXIV (1955) 28–51 and Robert J. Fogelin,Evidence and Meaning, Humanities Press, New York, 1967, pp. 94–98.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a good review of the relevant literature see Herbert L. Pick and Ann D. Pick, ‘Sensory and Perceptual Development’, inCarmichael's Manual of Child Psychology (ed. by Paul H. Mussen), John Wiley, New York, 1970, vol. I, pp. 773–848.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The best review of the literature is John H. Flavell, ‘Concept development’,Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, vol. I, pp. 983–1059.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Annis
    • 1
  1. 1.Ball State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations