Dogmatismo e Inferencia Ampliatival
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.42186Palabras clave:
Inferencia ampliativa, Disyuntivismo, Dogmatismo fenomenal, Escepticismo, TransmisiónResumen
El papel probatorio de la experiencia en la justificación de las creencias ha estado en el centro del debate de la filosofía en los últimos años. Un punto de vista es que la experiencia, o la apariencia, puede conferir una justificación inmediata (anulable) a la creencia en virtud de su fenomenología representacional. Llame a este punto de vista “dogmatismo representacional”. Otro punto de vista es que la experiencia confiere una justificación inmediata a la creencia en virtud de su fenomenología relacional. Llame a este punto de vista “dogmatismo relacional”. El objetivo de este artículo es contrastar estas versiones del dogmatismo en términos de su capacidad para dar cuenta de la justificación inferencial ampliativa o no deductiva. Argumentaré que solo la concepción representacional puede proporcionar una explicación plausible de este tipo de justificación.
Descargas
Citas
ALSTON, W. P. Sellars and the Myth of the Given. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 65, n. 1, p. 69-86, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00183.x
BEEBE, J. The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 79, n. 3, p. 605-636, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00295.x
BERGMANN, M. Epistemic Circularity: Malignant and Benign. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 69, p. 709-727, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00524.x
BONJOUR, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.
BONJOUR, L. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625176
BONJOUR, L. Toward a Defense of Empirical Foundationalism. In: DEPAUL, M. (ed.). Resurrecting Old-Fashioned Foundationalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. p. 22-38.
BONJOUR, L. A Version of Internalist Foundationalism. In: BONJOUR, L.; SOSA, E. Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Malden. MA: Blackwell, 2003. p. 3-96.
BONJOUR, L. In Defense of The A Priori. In: STEUP, M.; Sosa, E. (ed.). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. p. 98-105.
BROGAARD, B. Phenomenal Seemings and Sensible Dogmatism. In: C. Tucker (ed.). Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013a. p. 270-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899494.003.0012
BROGAARD, B. It’s Not What It Seems. A Semantic Account of “Seems” and Seemings. Inquiry, [S. I.], v. 56, n. 2-3, p. 210-239, 2013b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2013.784481
BROGAARD, B. Foundationalism. In: BERNECKER, S.; MICHAELIAN, K. (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory. Routledge, 2017. p. 296-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687315-24
BROGAARD, B. Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification. In: MCCAIN, K. (ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence: New Essays on Evidentialism. [S. I.]: Synthese Library, 2018a. p. 53-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95993-1_5
BROGAARD, B. Seeing & Saying. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190495251.001.0001
BROGAARD, B. The Rational Roles of Experience. In: ROSENHAGEN, Raja (ed.). Reformed Empiricism and its Prospects. Synthese Library, Springer, 2021.
CHISHOLM, R. M. Perceiving. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
CHISHOLM, R. M. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1966.
CHUDNOFF, E. Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683000.001.0001
CHUDNOFF, E. (ed.) Review of Tucker Seemings and Justification. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2014a.
CHUDNOFF, E. The Rational Roles of Intuition. In: BOOTH, A. R.; ROWBOTTOM, D. P. (ed.). Intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014b. p. 9-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199609192.003.0002
CHUDNOFF, E. Epistemic Elitism and Other Minds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 96, n. 2, p. 276-298, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12308
DAVIES, M. Externalism, Architecturalism, and Epistemic Warrant. In: WRIGHT, C.; SMITH, B.; MACDONALD, C. (ed.). Knowing Our Own Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 321-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199241406.003.0012
DRETSKE, F. The Case against Closure. In: STEUP, M.; SOSA, E. (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. p. 13-25.
EVANS, G. Reference and Contingency. The Monist, [S. I.], v. 62, n. 2, p. 161-189, 1979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197962220
FISH, W. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381344.001.0001
FISH, W. Disjunctivism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009b. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/disjunct/#SH4a.
FUMERTON, R. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.
FUMERTON, R. Markie, Speckles, and Classical Foundationalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 79, n. 1, p. 207-212, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00272.x
FUMERTON, R. The Prospects for Traditional Internalism. In: COPPENGER, B.; BERGMANN, M. (ed.). Intellectual Assurance: Essays on Traditional Epistemic Internalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 239-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198719632.003.0013
GOLDMAN, A. What is Justified Belief? In: PAPPAS, G. (ed.). Justification and Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. p. 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9493-5_1
HASAN, A. In: Defense of Rationalism about Abductive Inference. In: POSTON, T.; MCCAIN, K. (ed.). Best Explanations: New Essays on Inference to the Best Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 150-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198746904.003.0010
HAWTHORNE, J. Deeply Contingent A Priori Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 65, n. 2, p. 247-269. 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00201.x
HUEMER, M. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield, 2001.
HUEMER, M. Ethical Intuitionism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-50317-5
HUEMER, M. Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 74, p. 30-55, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00002.x
KEYNES, J. A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan, 1921.
LEITE, A. Believing One’s Reasons are Good. Synthese, [S. I.], n. 161, p. 419-441, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9093-1
MCCAIN, K. Evidentialism and Epistemic Justification. Oxford: Routledge, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315882390
MCCAIN, K. Explanationist Aid for Phenomenal Conservatism. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 195, n. 7, p. 3035-3050, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1064-6
MCDOWELL, J. Criteria, Defeasibility and Knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, [S. I.], n. 68, p. 455- 479, 1982
MCGRATH, M. Dogmatism, Underminers and Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 86, n. 3, p. 533-562, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00597.x
MCGRATH, M. Looks and Perceptual Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 96, v. 1, p. 110-133, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12289
MCGREW, T. The Foundations of Knowledge, Lanham, MD: Littlefield Adams Books, 1995.
MCGREW, T. A Defense of Classical Foundationalism. In: POJMAN, L. P. (ed.). The Theory of Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary Readings. 2. ed. Belmont, CA/ London: Wadsworth, 1998. p. 224-235.
MCLAUGHLIN, B. Skepticism, Externalism, and Self-Knowledge. Aristotelian Society, [S. I.], Supplementary Volume, n. 74, p. 93-118, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8349.00065
NOZICK, R. Philosophical Explorations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.
POLLOCK, J. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Towata, NJ: Rowman, 1986.
POLLOCK, J. Defeasible Reasons. Cognitive Science, [S. I.], v. 11, n. 4, p. 481-518, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
PRYOR, J. The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. Noûs, [S. I.], v. 34, n. 4, p. 517-549, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00277
PRYOR, J. What’s Wrong with Moore’s Argument? Philosophical Issue [S. I.], n. 14, p. 349-378, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00034.x
PRYOR, J. When Warrant Transmits. In: COLIVA, A. (ed.). Wittgenstein, Epistemology and Mind: Themes from the Philosophy of Crispin Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 269-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278053.003.0011
PRYOR, J. Problems for Credulism. In: TUCKER, C. (ed.). Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press, (2013). p. 89-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899494.003.0005
RAMSEY, W. Prototypes and Conceptual Analysis. Topoi, [S. I.], n. 11, p. 59–70, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00768299
REILAND, I. Experience, Seemings, and Evidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, [S. I.], n. 96, p. 510-534, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12113
Russell, B. Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, [S. I.], n. 11, p. 209-232, 1910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/11.1.108
RUSSELL, B. Theory of Knowledge: The 1913 Manuscript. E. Eames (ed.). London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1984.
SIEGEL, S. The Rationality of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198797081.001.0001
Silins, N. Basic Justification and the Moorean Response to the Skeptic. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, [S. I.], v. 2, p. 108-140, 2008.
SILINS, N. The Significance of High-Level Content. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 162, n. 1, p. 13-33, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9991-7
STOUTENBURG, G. Traditional Internalism and Foundational Justification. Erkenntnis, [S. I.], v. 85, n. 1, p. 121-138, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0021-9
TUCKER, C. When Transmission Fails. Philosophical Review, [S. I.], v. 119, p. 497-529, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2010-012
TURRI, J. On the Relationship between Propositional and Doxastic Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 80, n. 2, p. 312-326, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00331.x
WRIGHT, C. Facts and Certainty. Proceedings of the British Academy, [S. I.], v. 71, p. 429-472, 1985.
WRIGHT, C. (Anti-)Sceptics Simple and Subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 65, p. 330-348, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00205.x
WRIGHT, C. Some Reflections on the Acquisition of Warrant by Inference. In: NUCCETELLI, S. (ed.), New Essays on Semantic Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003. p. 57-77.
WRIGHT, C. Perils of Dogmatism. In: NUCCETELLI, S. (ed.). Themes from G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 25-48.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Veritas (Porto Alegre)
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de Autor
La sumisión de originales para la Revista Veritas implica la transferencia, por los autores, de los derechos de publicación. El copyright de los artículos de esta revista es el autor, junto con los derechos de la revista a la primera publicación. Los autores sólo podrán utilizar los mismos resultados en otras publicaciones indicando claramente a Revista Veritas como el medio de la publicación original.
Creative Commons License
Excepto donde especificado de modo diferente, se aplican a la materia publicada en este periódico los términos de una licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional, que permite el uso irrestricto, la distribución y la reproducción en cualquier medio siempre y cuando la publicación original sea correctamente citada. Copyright: © 2006-2020 EDIPUCRS