Synthese

, Volume 189, Issue 2, pp 395–413

Bootstrap and rollback: generalizing epistemic circularity

Article

Abstract

Reliabilists accept the possibility of basic knowledge—knowledge that p in virtue of the reliability of some belief-producing process r without antecedent knowledge that r is reliable. Cohen (Philos Phenomenol Res 65:309–329, 2002, Philos Phenomenol Res 70:417–430, 2005) and Vogel (J Philos 97:602–623, 2000, J Philos 105:518–539, 2008) have argued that one can bootstrap knowledge that r is reliable from basic knowledge. This paper provides a diagnosis of epistemic bootstrapping, and then shows that recent attempts at embracing bootstrapped knowledge are found wanting. Instead it is argued that such arguments are afflicted by a novel kind of generalized epistemic circularity. The ensuing view is defended against various objections, and an explanation of the source of that circularity is offered.

Keywords

Reliabilism Epistemic bootstrapping Epistemic circularity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alston W. (1986) Epistemic circularity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann M. (2004) Epistemic circularity: Malignant and benign. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69: 709–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black T. (2008) Solving the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophical Quarterly 58: 597–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brueckner A., Buford C. (2009) Bootstrapping and knowledge of reliability. Philosophical Studies 145: 407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen S. (2002) Basic knowledge and the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen S. (2005) Why basic knowledge is easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70: 417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conee E., Feldman R. (2004) Evidentialism, essays in epistemology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies M. (2008) Two purposes of arguing and two epistemic projects. In: Ravenscroft I. (eds) Minds, eEthics, and conditionals, themes from the philosophy of Frank Jackson. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 337–384Google Scholar
  9. Dretske F. (1969) Seeing and knowing. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Dretske F. (1970) Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dretske F. (2005) The case against closure. In: Steup M., Sosa E. (eds) Contemporary debates, epistemology. Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  12. Fumerton, R. (1995). Metaepistemology and skepticism. Rowman & LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman A. (1986) Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  14. Kornblith H. (2009) A reliabilist solution to the problem of promiscuous bootstrapping. Analysis 69: 263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markie P.J. (2005) Easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70: 406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pryor J. (2000) The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs 34: 517–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pryor J. (2004) What’s wrong with Moore’s argument?. Philosophical Issues 14: 349–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silins N. (2005) Transmission failure failure. Philosophical Studies 126: 71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith M. (2009) Transmission failure explained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 164–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Titelbaum, M. (2009). Comment on Brian weatherson’s blog thoughts, arguments and Rants, http://tar.weatherson.org/2009/07/18/two-bootstrapping-problems.
  21. van Cleve J. (2003) Is knowledge easy—or impossible? Externalism as the only alternative to skepticism. In: Luper S. (eds) The sceptics: Contemporary essays. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 45–59Google Scholar
  22. Vogel J. (2008) Epistemic bootstrapping. Journal of Philosophy 105: 518–539Google Scholar
  23. Vogel J. (2000) Reliabilism leveled. Journal of Philosophy 97: 602–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Warfield T. (2004) When epistemic closure does and does not fail: A lesson from the history of epistemology. Analysis 64: 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisberg J. (2010) Bootstrapping in general. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White R. (2006) Problems for dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 131: 525–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wright C. (2002) (Anti-)sceptics simple and subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 330–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright C. (2003) Some reflections on the acquisition of warrant by inference. In: Nuccetelli S. (eds) New essays on semantic externalism and self-knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 57–78Google Scholar
  29. Wright C. (2004) Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)?. Supplement to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 78: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright C. (2007) Perils of dogmatism. In: Nuccetelli S., Seay G. (eds) Themes from G. E. Moore. New essays in epistemology and ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–48Google Scholar
  31. Wright C. (2010) Frictional coherentism? A comment on chapter 10 of Ernest Sosa’s Reflective Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 153: 29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zalabardo J. (2005) Externalism, skepticism and the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophical Review 114: 33–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations