(top of page)

Epistemology


"Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservativism" (pre-print copy of my article in Philosophical Studies152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359)
Abstract: Michael Huemer has argued for the justification principle known as phenomenal conservativism by employing a transcendental argument that claims all attempts to reject phenomenal conservativism ultimately are doomed to self-defeat. My contribution presents two independent arguments against the self-defeat argument for phenomenal conservativism after briefly presenting Huemer's account of phenomenal conservativism and the justification for the self-defeat argument. My first argument suggests some ways that philosophers may reject Huemer's premise that all justified beliefs are formed on the basis of seemings. In the second argument I contend that phenomenal conservativism is not a well-motivated account of internal justification, which is a further reason to reject the self-defeat argument. Consequently, the self-defeat argument fails to show that rejecting phenomenal conservativism inevitably leads one to a self-defeating position.


"Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism" (pre-print copy copy that is forthcoming in Southwest Philosophical Studies)
ABSTRACT: Timothy Williamson has offered a novel approach to refuting external world skepticism in his influential book, Knowledge and Its Limits. The strategy employed by Williamson is to show that skeptics falsely attribute too much self-knowledge to the epistemic agent when they claim that one's evidence is the same when in a "good case" as it would be in a similar "bad case." Williamson argues that one's evidence is not the same in a good case as it would be in a bad case. My contention is that Williamson's account fails. In order to make his case against skepticism, Williamson must attribute an overly strong conception of evidence to the skeptic, which can be avoided by appealing to a phenomenal concept of evidence. Thus, a different approach must be taken to avoid skeptical consequences.

"In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting" (pre-print of my article in The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51) [Direct link to journal]
ABSTRACT: In numerous works Alvin Plantinga has argued that classical foundationalism is a failed theory of knowledge due to its self-referential incoherence. Plantinga's argument, however, falls short of demonstrating that classical foundationalism is self-refuting. To bring this to light, I will review the form of Plantinga's argument in comparison with other examples of self-refutation. Upon closer inspection, it will be clear that classical foundationalism is not self-refuting as Plantinga claims. Furthermore, I will expose another flaw in Plantinga's argument against classical foundationalism, which shows at best that Plantinga's argument cannot be reconstructed to show that classical foundationalism is improbable. While Plantinga's argument may highlight a challenge for classical foundationalism, his argument does not establish the falsity of classical foundationalism, nor does it offer any other overriding reason to reject it. Thus, Plantinga's criticisms of classical foundationalism are not sufficient by themselves to rule out the theory's viability.

(top of page)