more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 3702
[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 10. Anti External Justification
]
Full Idea
If externalism is the final story, we have no reason to think that any of our beliefs are true, which amounts to a very strong and intuitively implausible version of scepticism.
Gist of Idea
Externalism means we have no reason to believe, which is strong scepticism
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
A very good point. I may, like a cat, know many things, with good external support, but as soon as I ask sceptical questions, I sink without trace if I lack internal reasons.
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]
|