Philosophical Studies

, Volume 157, Issue 3, pp 323–340 | Cite as

Movin’ on up: higher-level requirements and inferential justification



Does inferential justification require the subject to be aware that her premises support her conclusion? Externalists tend to answer “no” and internalists tend to answer “yes”. In fact, internalists often hold the strong higher-level requirement that an argument justifies its conclusion only if the subject justifiably believes that her premises support her conclusion. I argue for a middle ground. Against most externalists, I argue that inferential justification requires that one be aware that her premises support her conclusion. Against many internalists, I argue that this higher-level awareness needn’t be doxastic or justified. I also argue that the required higher-level awareness needn’t be caused in some appropriate way, e.g. by a reliable or properly functioning faculty. I suspect that this weaker higher-level requirement is overlooked because, at first glance, it seems absurd to allow nondoxastic, unjustified, and unreliably-caused higher-level awareness to contribute to inferential justification. One of the central goals of this paper is to explain how such weak awareness can make an essential contribution to inferential justification.


Inferential justification Higher-level requirements Internalism Externalism Fumerton Awareness Subject’s perspective Inferential internalism 


  1. Audi, R. (1993). The structure of justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann, M. (2005). Defeaters and higher-level requirements. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification and awareness: A defense of epistemic externalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bonjour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cling, A. (2003). Self-supporting arguments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66, 276–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. (1984). Justification and truth. Philosophical Studies, 46, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fumerton, R. (1985). Metaphysical and epistemological problems of perception. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fumerton, R. (1995). Metaepistemology and skepticism. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Fumerton, R. (2004a). Epistemic probability. Philosophical Issues, 14, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fumerton, R. (2004b). Inferential internalism and the presuppositions of skeptical arguments. In R. Schantz (Ed.), The externalist challenge (pp. 157–168). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Fumerton, R. (2004c). Achieving epistemic assent. In J. Greco (Ed.), Ernest Sosa and his critics (pp. 72–85). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fumerton, R. (2005). Speckled hens and objects of acquaintance. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fumerton, R. (2006). Epistemic internalism, philosophical assurance, and the skeptical predicament. In T. M. Crisp, M. Davidson, & D. Vander Laan (Eds.), Knowledge and reality: Essays in honor of Alvin Plantinga (pp. 179–191). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Greco, J. (1999). Agent reliabilism. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 273–296.Google Scholar
  15. Greco, J. (2000). Putting skeptics in their place: The nature of skeptical arguments and their role in philosophical inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greco, J., & Breyer, D. (2008). Cognitive integration and the ownership of belief: Response to Bernecker. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Huemer, M. (2002). Fumerton’s principle of inferential justification. Journal of Philosophical Research, 27, 329–339.Google Scholar
  19. Leite, A. (2008). Believing one’s reasons are good. Synthese, 161, 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomson, J. J. (1965). Reasons and reasoning. In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tolhurst, W. (1998). Seemings. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 293–302.Google Scholar
  23. Tucker, C. (2010a). Why open-minded people should endorse dogmatism.” Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 529–545.Google Scholar
  24. Tucker, C. (2010b). When transmission fails. Philosophical Review, 119, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tucker, C. (Forthcoming). No justified higher-level belief, no problem: A reply to Cling. Journal of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
  26. Tucker, C. (Manuscript). Inferential externalism and the evidential support requirement: Irreconcilable differences?Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations