Abstract
In this work I develop what I call the problem of meta-epistemic disagreement. I argue that there is a kind of apparent intractable disagreement, embodied in recent disputes between internalists and externalists about epistemic justification, which calls for an explanation. I claim that such disagreement suggests adopting some form of antirealism about justification, construed as the denial of a single objective property denoted by 'justification'. I argue that each of the following antirealist positions about justification fails to explain meta-epistemic disagreement: nihilism, an ambiguity view, contextualism, relativism, and expressivism. In the final chapter I suggest a form of pluralism about justification that vindicates epistemic realism and addresses the problem of meta-epistemic disagreement.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer





