Where epistemic safety fails
College
College of Liberal Arts
Department/Unit
Philosophy
Document Type
Article
Source Title
Kritike
Volume
14
Issue
2
First Page
54
Last Page
75
Publication Date
12-2020
Abstract
In a previous paper, I briefly profiled unsafe beliefs as either: (1) beliefs formed using a method that is conditionally reliable and (2) beliefs formed using a method with unstable reliability. I dubbed these profiles as B-type and C-type, respectively. Extending this analysis, I will demonstrate how these belief types operate and why they fail in some notable counterexamples to safety offered by Neta and Rohrbaugh, Cosmesaña, Baumann, Kelp, Bogardus, and Freitag. Examining these cases also motivate my thesis that a method’s conditional reliability or instability does not render a belief formed by an actually reliable method unjustified; its epistemic worth remains intact, unsafe as it may be.
html
Recommended Citation
Dacela, M. L. (2020). Where epistemic safety fails. Kritike, 14 (2), 54-75. Retrieved from https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/14873
Disciplines
Philosophy
Keywords
Belief and doubt
Upload File
wf_no