Dogmatismo e Inferência Ampliativa




Inferência ampliativa, Disjuntivismo, Dogmatismo fenomenal, Ceticismo, Transmissão


O papel evidencial da experiência na justificação de crenças tem estado no centro dos debates filosóficos nos últimos anos. Uma concepção é que a experiência, ou a aparência, pode conferir justificação imediata (revocável) à crença em virtude de sua fenomenologia representacional. Chame essa proposta de “dogmatismo representacional”. Outra concepção é que a experiência confere justificação imediata à crença em virtude de sua fenomenologia relacional. Chame essa proposta de “dogmatismo relacional”. O objetivo deste artigo é contrastar essas duas versões de dogmatismo em termos de sua capacidade de explicar a justificação inferencial ampliativa ou não dedutiva. Argumentarei que apenas a concepção representacional pode fornecer uma explicação plausível desse tipo de justificativa.


Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Berit Brogaard, University of Miami, Coral Gables, USA.

Professor and Cooper Fellow, University of Miami.


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:

BEEBE, J. The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 79, n. 3, p. 605-636, 2009. DOI:

BERGMANN, M. Epistemic Circularity: Malignant and Benign. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 69, p. 709-727, 2004. DOI:

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:

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:

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:

BROGAARD, B. Foundationalism. In: BERNECKER, S.; MICHAELIAN, K. (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory. Routledge, 2017. p. 296-309. DOI:

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:

BROGAARD, B. Seeing & Saying. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018b. DOI:

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:

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:

CHUDNOFF, E. Epistemic Elitism and Other Minds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 96, n. 2, p. 276-298, 2018. DOI:

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:

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:

FISH, W. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009a. DOI:

FISH, W. Disjunctivism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009b. Available at:

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:

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:

GOLDMAN, A. What is Justified Belief? In: PAPPAS, G. (ed.). Justification and Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. p. 1-23. DOI:

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:

HAWTHORNE, J. Deeply Contingent A Priori Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], v. 65, n. 2, p. 247-269. 2002. DOI:

HUEMER, M. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield, 2001.

HUEMER, M. Ethical Intuitionism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. DOI:

HUEMER, M. Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 74, p. 30-55, 2007. DOI:

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:

MCCAIN, K. Evidentialism and Epistemic Justification. Oxford: Routledge, 2014. DOI:

MCCAIN, K. Explanationist Aid for Phenomenal Conservatism. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 195, n. 7, p. 3035-3050, 2018. DOI:

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:

MCGRATH, M. Looks and Perceptual Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [S. I.], n. 96, v. 1, p. 110-133, 2018. DOI:

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:

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:

PRYOR, J. The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. Noûs, [S. I.], v. 34, n. 4, p. 517-549, 2000. DOI:

PRYOR, J. What’s Wrong with Moore’s Argument? Philosophical Issue [S. I.], n. 14, p. 349-378, 2004. DOI:

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:

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:

RAMSEY, W. Prototypes and Conceptual Analysis. Topoi, [S. I.], n. 11, p. 59–70, 1992. DOI:

REILAND, I. Experience, Seemings, and Evidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, [S. I.], n. 96, p. 510-534, 2015. DOI:

Russell, B. Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, [S. I.], n. 11, p. 209-232, 1910. DOI:

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:

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:

STOUTENBURG, G. Traditional Internalism and Foundational Justification. Erkenntnis, [S. I.], v. 85, n. 1, p. 121-138, 2020. DOI:

TUCKER, C. When Transmission Fails. Philosophical Review, [S. I.], v. 119, p. 497-529, 2010. DOI:

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:

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:

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.




Como Citar

Brogaard, B. (2021). Dogmatismo e Inferência Ampliativa. Veritas (Porto Alegre), 66(1), e42186.



Epistemologia & Filosofia da Linguagem