Philosophical Studies

, Volume 159, Issue 1, pp 61–68 | Cite as

Silins’s Liberalism

Article

Abstract

Nico Silins has proposed and defended a form of Liberalism about perception that, he thinks, is a good compromise between the Dogmatism of Jim Pryor and others, and the Conservatism of Roger White, Crispin Wright, and others. In particular, Silins argues that his theory can explain why having justification to believe the negation of skeptical hypotheses is a necessary condition for having justification to believe ordinary propositions, even though (contra the Conservative) the latter is not had in virtue of the former. I argue that Silins's explanation is unsuccessful, and hence that we should prefer either White/Wright-style Conservatism (which can explain this necessary condition) or Pryor-style Dogmatism (which denies that this is a necessary condition).

Keywords

Liberalism about perception Conservatism about perception Dogmatism 

References

  1. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 119, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Nous, 41, 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In S. Hetherington (Ed.), Epistemology futures (pp. 216–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable religious disagreement. In L. Antony (Ed.), Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the secular life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kelly, T. (2005). The Epistemic significance of disagreement. In S. John & G. S. Tamar (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 167–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kelly, T. (2010). Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In R. Feldman & T. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kotzen, M. (manuscript). A formal account of epistemic defeat. Available at http://matthewkotzen.net/matthewkotzen.net/Research_files/defeatersweb.pdf.
  8. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Silins, N. (2008). Basic justification and the Moorean response to the skeptic. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 2, pp. 108–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. White, R. (2006). Problems for dogmatism. Philosophical Studies, 131, 525–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wright, C. (2002). (Anti-)sceptics simple and subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(2), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wright, C. (2004). Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)? Aristotelian Society Supplement, 78, 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wright, C. (2008). The perils of dogmatism. In S. Nuccetelli & G. Seay (Eds.), Themes from G. E. Moore: New essays in epistemology and ethics (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations