Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:59:48.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BEST EXPLANATIONISM AND JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEFS ABOUT THE FUTURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2015

Gregory Stoutenburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Earl Conee and Richard Feldman have recently argued that the evidential support relation should be understood in terms of explanatory coherence: roughly, one's evidence supports a proposition if and only if that proposition is part of the best available explanation of the evidence (2008). Their thesis has been criticized through alleged counterexamples, perhaps the most important of which are cases where a subject has a justified belief about the future (Byerly 2013; Byerly and Martin forthcoming). Kevin McCain has defended the thesis against Byerly's counterexample (2013, 2014a). I argue that McCain's defense is inadequate before pointing toward a more promising solution for explanationism. The Byerly–McCain exchange is important because it casts light on the difficult issues of the standards for justification and the nature of epistemic support. Furthermore, McCain's defense of explanationism about epistemic support represents an important recent development of the burgeoning explanationist program in epistemology and philosophy of science.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 429 - 437
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

BonJour, L. 2003. ‘A Version of Internalist Foundationalism.’ In BonJour, L. and Sosa, E. (eds), Epistemic Justification, pp. 3–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byerly, T. R. 2013. ‘Explanationism and Justified Beliefs about the Future.’ Erkenntnis, 78: 229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. R. and Martin, K. ‘Problems for Explanationism on Both Sides.’ Erkenntnis, forthcoming. doi: 10.1007/a10670-014-9673-2.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 2004. ‘Evidentialism.’ Reprinted in Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology, pp. 83–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 2008. ‘Evidence.’ In Smith, Q. (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 83–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, J. 1982–1983. ‘Induction, Explanation, and Natural Necessity.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 83: 87–101.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R. 1980. ‘Induction and Reasoning to the Best Explanation.’ Philosophy of Science, 47: 589–600.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R. 2005. ‘The Challenge of Refuting Skepticism.’ In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 85–97. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1965. ‘The Inference to the Best Explanation.’ Philosophical Review, 74: 88–95.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1993. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 2nd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCain, K. 2013. ‘Explanationist Evidentialism.’ Episteme, 10: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, K. 2014a. ‘Evidentialism, Explanationism, and Beliefs About the Future.’ Erkenntnis, 79: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, K. 2014b. Evidentialism and Epistemic Justification. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar