Journals / Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 1

On the Differentia of Epistemic Justification

Epistemik Gerekçelendirmenin Doğası Üzerine

Pages
1–10
Publication Date
2017-01-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper will close with a brief assessment of two possible rejoinders the received view might make to my objection. 

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:How are we to distinguish epistemic justification for believing a proposition from other sorts of justification one might have for believing it?
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to what I call the received view about the differentia of epistemic justification, epistemic justification is intimately connected to “the cognitive goal of arriving at truth” in a specific way no other sorts of justification can possibly be.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper will close with a brief assessment of two possible rejoinders the received view might make to my objection. 
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gerekçelendirme · Epistemik Gerekçelendirme · Pragmatik Gerekçelendirme

Abstract

How are we to distinguish epistemic justification for believing a proposition from other sorts of justification one might have for believing it? According to what I call the received view about the differentia of epistemic justification, epistemic justification is intimately connected to “the cognitive goal of arriving at truth” in a specific way no other sorts of justification can possibly be. However, I will argue that the received view is mistaken by showing that there are cases in which pragmatic justification for believing a proposition is related to the cognitive goal of arriving at truth in a way epistemic justification is supposed to be. The paper will close with a brief assessment of two possible rejoinders the received view might make to my objection. 

Özet

Epistemik gerekçelendirmeyi diğer tür gerekçelendirmelerden nasıl ayırmalıyız? Hâkim görüş diyebileceğimiz bir fikre göre, epistemik gerekçelendirme “doğruya varma” diyebileceğimiz bilişsel hedefe diğer tür gerekçelendirmelerin olamayacağı şekilde yakın bir biçimde irtibatlıdır. Bu yazıda, hâkim görüşün yanlış olduğunu iddia edeceğim. Bu iddiam, bazı olası durumlarda pragmatik gerekçelendirmenin de doğruya varma hedefiyle olan irtibatının epistemik gerekçelendirmenin o hedefle kurduğu iddia edilen irtibatın aynısı olduğunu gösteren bir düşünce deneyine dayanıyor. Yazı, hâkim görüşün sunduğum itiraza karşı geliştirebileceği iki yanıtın kısa bir değerlendirmesi ile sonlanıyor. 

🔖

Cite This Article

Demircioğlu, E. (2017). On the Differentia of Epistemic Justification. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 1–10. https://ajindex.com/articles/1140262

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Armstrong, D. 2000. “The Thermometer-Model of Knowledge,” In S. Bernecker and F. Dretske (Eds.), Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 72-85.
  2. BonJour, L. 1978. “Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?” American Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (1), pp. 1-13.
  3. BonJour, L. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  4. David, M. 2001. “Truth as the Epistemic Goal,” In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, Truth, and Duty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151-169.
  5. Feldman, R. 2002. Epistemology. Michigan: Prentice Hall.