BibTeX
@MISC{Silva12epistemicallyself-defeating,
author = {Paul Silva},
title = {Epistemically Self-defeating Arguments and Skepticism about Intuition},
year = {2012}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
An argument is epistemically self-defeating when either the truth of an argument’s conclusion or belief in an argument’s conclusion defeats one’s justification to believe at least one of that argument’s premises. Some extant defenses of the evidentiary value of intuition have in-voked considerations of epistemic self-defeat in their defense. I argue that there is one kind of argument against intuition, an unreliability argument, which, even if epistemically self-defeating, can still imply that we are not justified in thinking intuition has evidentiary value. 1 Intuition and Epistemic Self-Defeat Let us say an argument is epistemically self-defeating when either the truth of an argument’s conclusion or belief in an argument’s conclusion defeats one’s justification to believe at least one of that argument’s premises.1 Accordingly, unless one has some other source of justification for the conclusion of such an argument one lacks justification to believe that conclusion. We are not
