more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 3701

[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 1. External Justification ]

Full Idea

An externalist theory of epistemic justification or warrant need not involve the possession by the believer of anything like a reason for thinking that their belief is true.

Gist of Idea

Externalist theories of justification don't require believers to have reasons for their beliefs

Source

Laurence Bonjour (In Defence of Pure Reason [1998], §3.7)

Book Ref

Bonjour,Laurence: 'In Defense of Pure Reason' [CUP 1998], p.96

A Reaction

That is the problem with externalism. If the believer does not have a reason, then why would they believe? Externalists are interesting on justification, but daft about belief. Why do I believe I know something, when I can't recall how I learnt it?

The 15 ideas from 'In Defence of Pure Reason'

3695 Philosophy is a priori if it is anything [Bonjour]
3696 A priori justification requires understanding but no experience [Bonjour]
3697 The concept of possibility is prior to that of necessity [Bonjour]
3698 Indeterminacy of translation is actually indeterminacy of meaning and belief [Bonjour]
3699 The induction problem blocks any attempted proof of physical statements [Bonjour]
3701 Externalist theories of justification don't require believers to have reasons for their beliefs [Bonjour]
3702 Externalism means we have no reason to believe, which is strong scepticism [Bonjour]
3700 Coherence can't be validated by appeal to coherence [Bonjour]
3704 Moderate rationalists believe in fallible a priori justification [Bonjour]
3703 You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up [Bonjour]
3651 Perceiving necessary connections is the essence of reasoning [Bonjour]
3706 A priori justification can vary in degree [Bonjour]
3707 Our rules of thought can only be judged by pure rational insight [Bonjour]
3708 All thought represents either properties or indexicals [Bonjour]
3709 Induction must go beyond the evidence, in order to explain why the evidence occurred [Bonjour]