Boycott 发表于 2025-3-26 22:37:49
Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005骑师 发表于 2025-3-27 01:39:34
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_32.png竖琴 发表于 2025-3-27 05:19:14
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_33.pngseparate 发表于 2025-3-27 10:38:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_34.png改革运动 发表于 2025-3-27 14:36:42
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71242-6the debate there are those epistemologists (internalists) who require the justifying factors of a belief to be cognitively accessible to the agent. Accordingly, something can be regarded as a justifier, that is, confer justification on a belief only if it is reflectively accessible to the subject. E雄伟 发表于 2025-3-27 19:23:47
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230513907he idea behind the problem is that any attempt at attaining epistemically justified beliefs incurs the charge of circularity or vicious regress. To be more precise, what the problem of the criterion highlights is the difficulty arising from trying to determine the extent of knowledge (justified beliGenome 发表于 2025-3-28 01:34:36
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_37.png芦笋 发表于 2025-3-28 05:44:53
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_38.png暗指 发表于 2025-3-28 08:10:01
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3134/313308/313308_39.pngLocale 发表于 2025-3-28 12:54:44
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511422ing dogmatically to one’s beliefs is epistemically preposterous, it would be equally unreasonable, it is said, to change them in the absence of any good reasons. This position known as epistemic conservatism seems to have had a distinguished line of advocates among the likes of Quine and Chisholm. A