The logic of epistemic justification

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Theories of epistemic justification are commonly assessed by exploring their predictions about particular hypothetical cases—predictions as to whether justification is present or absent in this or that case. With a few exceptions, it is much less common for theories of epistemic justification to be assessed by exploring their predictions about logical principles. The exceptions are a handful of ‘closure’ principles, which have received a lot of attention, and which certain theories of justification are well known to invalidate. But these closure principles are only a small sample of the logical principles that we might consider. In this paper, I will outline four further logical principles that plausibly hold for justification and two which plausibly do not. While my primary aim is just to put these principles forward, I will use them to evaluate some different approaches to justification and (tentatively) conclude that a ‘normic’ theory of justification best captures its logic.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3857-3875
JournalSynthese
Volume195
Issue number9
Early online date24 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Sep 2018

Keywords

  • justification
  • probability
  • normalcy
  • risk minimisation theory
  • Normic theory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The logic of epistemic justification'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this