Article
Details
Citation
Melis G (2014) Understanding Undermining Defeat. Philosophical Studies, 170 (3), pp. 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0238-z
Abstract
Taking the inspiration from some points made by Scott Sturgeon and Albert Casullo, I articulate a view according to which an important difference between undermining and overriding defeaters is that the former require the subject to engage in some higher-order epistemic thinking, while the latter don’t. With the help of some examples, I argue that underminers push the cognizer to reflect on the way she formed a belief by challenging the epistemic worthiness of either the source of justification or the specific justificatory process. By contrast, overriders needn’t pose any such challenge. I also consider some problems for the proposed view, and I put forward some possible solutions. Finally, I provide some details on how undermining defeat works in different cases.
Keywords
Epistemology; Defeaters; Undermining; Overriding; Justificatory process; Higher-order
Journal
Philosophical Studies: Volume 170, Issue 3
| Status | Published |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 30/09/2014 |
| Publication date online | 16/11/2013 |
| URL | |
| Publisher | Springer |
| ISSN | 0554-0739 |
| eISSN | 2153-8379 |
People (1)
Future Leadership Fellowship Researcher, Philosophy