The Advantages of Neomoorean Antiskeptical Strategy

Authors

  • Jelena Mijić Institute for Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2004615M

Keywords:

knowledge, skepticism, sensitivity principle, externalism

Abstract

This paper aims to argue in support of the neo-Moorean attempt(s) to solve a skeptical paradox. It defends the thesis that neo-Mooreans retain advantages and avoid disadvantages of rival anti-skeptical strategies – namely epistemic contextualism. The puzzle that a radical skeptic poses is exemplified by Nozick’s famous Brain in a Vat thought experiment, which enables construing valid arguments consisting of jointly inconsistent but independently plausible premises. The first and the second part of the paper are devoted to Nozick’s conditional analysis of knowledge and De Rose’s epistemic contextualism, both based on the sensitivity principle. Referring to De Roses’ contextualist theory, we demonstrate that the failure of Nozick’s conditional analysis of knowledge to provide a satisfactory answer to a skeptical paradox does not concern the sensitivity principle but rather closure denial and embracing the so-called “abominable conjunction”. In the third part, we point out the weaknesses of the presumably most successful, contextualist response to the paradox. We explain that even though DeRose’s anti-skeptical strategy is built upon Nozick’s theory, he successfully surmounts its difficulties. Yet it seems that as a contextualist, he necessarily makes some concessions to a radical skeptic. Eventually, the article introduces Black’s neo-Moorean anti-skeptical theory based on the sensitivity principle as a strategy that makes neither concessions, nor counterintuitive proposals.

References

Black, Tim (2008), “Defending a Sensitive Neo-Moorean Invariantism”, in Hendricks F. Vincent and Duncan Pritchard (eds.), New Waves in Epistemology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 8–27.
—. (2002), “A Moorean Response to Brain-in-a-Vat Scepticism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80(2): 148–163.
DeRose, Keith (2004), “Sosa, Safety, Sensitivity and Skeptical Hypotheses”, in Greco, John (ed.), Ernest Sosa and His Critics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 22–41.
—. (1995), “Solving the Skeptical Problem”, The Philosophical Review 104(1): 1–52. Gettier, B.J. (1963), “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Analysis 23(6): 121–123.
Goldman, Alvin (1979), „What is Justified Belief?”, in Pappas, George (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–23.
—. (1967), “A Causal Theory of Knowing”, The Journal of Philosophy 64(21): 357–372.
Lazović, Živan (2012), Problem filozofskog skepticizma [The Problem of Philosophical Skeptcism]. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju.
—. (2011), “Eksternalizam, skepticizam i epistemička sreća” [Externalism, Skepticism and Epistemic Luck], Filozofija i društvo 22(1): 89–102.
Moore, George Edward (2013a), “A Defence of Common Sense”, G.E. Moore Selected Writings, Routledge, pp. 106–133.
—. (2013b), “Proof of an External World”, G.E. Moore Selected Writings, Routledge, pp. 147–170.
Nozick, Robert (1981), Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pritchard, Duncan (2005), “Neo-Mooreanism Vs. Contextualism”, Grazer Philosophische Studien 69(1): 20–43.
Sosa, Ernest (1999), “How to Defeat Opposition to Moore”, Philosophical Perspectives 13: 141–154.

Published

2020-12-30