Meta-Epistemic Defeat

Joseph Carter

doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9

Meta-Epistemic Defeat

Joseph Carter

School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

An account of meta-epistemic defeaters—distinct from traditional ( rst-order) epistemic defeaters—is motivated and defended, drawing from case studies in- volving epistemic error-theory (e.g., Olson 2011; cf., Streumer 2012) and epis- temic relativism (e.g., MacFarlane 2005; 2011; 2014). Mechanisms of tradi- tional epistemic defeat and meta-epistemic defeat are compared and contrasted, and some new puzzles are introduced.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2877-2896
Journal	Synthese
Volume	195
Issue number	7
Early online date	29 Aug 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 29 Aug 2016

Access to Document

10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9

art%3A10.1007%2Fs11229-016-1187-9Final published version, 515 KB

Cite this

@article{67108921b3364eb3b2011c570b5492d6,

title = "Meta-Epistemic Defeat",

abstract = "An account of meta-epistemic defeaters—distinct from traditional ( rst-order) epistemic defeaters—is motivated and defended, drawing from case studies in- volving epistemic error-theory (e.g., Olson 2011; cf., Streumer 2012) and epis- temic relativism (e.g., MacFarlane 2005; 2011; 2014). Mechanisms of tradi- tional epistemic defeat and meta-epistemic defeat are compared and contrasted, and some new puzzles are introduced.",

author = "Joseph Carter",

note = "Springer Compact Gold OA",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

day = "29",

doi = "10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9",

language = "English",

volume = "195",

pages = "2877--2896",

journal = "Synthese",

issn = "0039-7857",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-Epistemic Defeat

AU - Carter, Joseph

N1 - Springer Compact Gold OA

PY - 2016/8/29

Y1 - 2016/8/29

N2 - An account of meta-epistemic defeaters—distinct from traditional ( rst-order) epistemic defeaters—is motivated and defended, drawing from case studies in- volving epistemic error-theory (e.g., Olson 2011; cf., Streumer 2012) and epis- temic relativism (e.g., MacFarlane 2005; 2011; 2014). Mechanisms of tradi- tional epistemic defeat and meta-epistemic defeat are compared and contrasted, and some new puzzles are introduced.

AB - An account of meta-epistemic defeaters—distinct from traditional ( rst-order) epistemic defeaters—is motivated and defended, drawing from case studies in- volving epistemic error-theory (e.g., Olson 2011; cf., Streumer 2012) and epis- temic relativism (e.g., MacFarlane 2005; 2011; 2014). Mechanisms of tradi- tional epistemic defeat and meta-epistemic defeat are compared and contrasted, and some new puzzles are introduced.

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9

DO - 10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9

M3 - Article

VL - 195

SP - 2877

EP - 2896

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 7

ER -

Meta-Epistemic Defeat

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this