Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:16:26.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT SEEMINGS SEEM TO BE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2015

Samuel A. Taylor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Phenomenal Conservatism (PC), if it seems to a subject S that P, S thereby has some degree of (defeasible) justification for believing P. But what is it for P to seem true? Answering this question is vital for assessing what role (if any) such states can play. Many have appeared to adopt a kind of non-reductionism that construes seemings as intentional states which cannot be reduced to more familiar mental states like beliefs or sensations. In this paper I aim to show that reductive accounts need to be taken more seriously by illustrating the plausibility of identifying seemings and conscious inclinations to form a belief. I briefly close the paper by considering the implications such an analysis might have for views such as PC.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 363 - 384
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

Baker, A. 2010. ‘Simplicity.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/simplicity/.Google Scholar
Block, N. 1995. ‘On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness.’ Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 18: 227–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. 2002. Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. 2003. ‘Back to Foundationalism.’ In Sosa, E. and Bonjour, L. (eds), Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues, pp. 119–40. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brewer, B. 2011. Perception and its Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. 1957. Perceiving. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 2004. ‘First Things First.’ In Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (eds), Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology, pp. 11–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 2013. ‘Seeming Evidence.’ In Tucker, C. (ed), Seemings and Justification, pp. 52–68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullison, A. 2010. ‘What are Seemings?' Ratio, 23: 260–74.Google Scholar
Cullison, A. 2013. ‘Seemings and Semantics.’ In Tucker, C. (ed), Seemings and Justification, pp. 33–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaul, M. 2009. ‘Phenomenal Conservatism and Self Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78: 205–12.Google Scholar
DePoe, J. 2011. ‘Defeating the Self Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism.’ Philosophical Studies, 152: 347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, R. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R. 2006. Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2011. ‘Toward a Synthesis of Reliabilism and Evidentialism? Or: Evidentialism's Troubles, Reliabilism's Rescue Package.’ In Dougherty, T. (ed), Evidentialism and its Discontents, pp. 254–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanna, N. 2011. ‘Against Phenomenal Conservatism.’ Acta Analytica, 26: 213–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, A. 2013. ‘Phenomenal Conservatism, Classical Foundationalism, and Internalist Justification.’ Philosophical Studies, 162: 119–41.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. 2001. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. 2006. ‘Phenomenal Conservatism and the Internalist Intuition.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 43: 147–58.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. 2007. ‘Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. 2013. ‘Phenomenal Conservatism Uber Alles.’ In Tucker, C. (ed), Seemings and Justification, pp. 328–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 2008. Perception and Basic Beliefs: Zombies, Modules, and the Problem of the External World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markie, P. 2005. ‘The Mystery of Perceptual Justification.’ Philosophical Studies, 126: 347–73.Google Scholar
Markie, P. 2006. ‘Epistemically Appropriate Perceptual Belief’. Noûs, 40: 118–42.Google Scholar
McCain, K. 2012. ‘Against Hanna on Phenomenal Conservatism.’ Acta Analytica, 27: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, R. and Henrich, J. 2006. ‘Susceptibility to Muller-Lyer Illusion, Theory-Neutral Observation, and the Diachronic Penetrability of the Visual Input System.’ Philosophical Psychology, 19: 79–100.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. 2000. ‘The Skeptic and the Dogmatist.’ Noûs, 34: 517–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. 1956. ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.’ In Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds), Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, pp. 253–329. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2007. A Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. 2012. ‘A Simple Theory of Introspection.’ In Smithies, D. and Stoljar, D. (eds), Introspection and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tolhurst, W. 1998. ‘Seemings.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 35: 293–302.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. 2010. ‘Why Open-Minded People Should Endorse Dogmatism.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 529–45.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. 2013. Seemings and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar