, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 59–72 | Cite as

Internalism and Externalism in Meliorative Epistemology

  • Tomoji Shogenji
Original article


This paper addresses the meta-epistemological dispute over the basis of epistemic evaluation from the standpoint of meliorative epistemology. Meliorative epistemology aims at guiding our epistemic practice to better results, and it comprises two levels of epistemic evaluation. At the social level (meliorative social epistemology) appropriate experts conduct evaluation for the community, so that epistemic evaluation is externalist since each epistemic subject in the community need not have access to the basis of the experts’ evaluation. While at the personal level (meliorative personal epistemology) epistemic evaluation is internalist since each member of the community must evaluate the reliability of the (apparent) experts from the first-person perspective. I argue that evaluation at the social level should be the primary focus of meliorative epistemology since meliorative personal epistemology does not provide informative epistemic norms. It is then pointed out that epistemic evaluation at the social level can be considered internalist in the extended sense (social internalism) in that every component of the evaluation needs to be recognized by some members of the community at some points. As a result, some familiar problems of internalist epistemology, such as regress and circularity of epistemic support, carry over to meliorative social epistemology.


Epistemic Status Epistemic Justification Epistemic Evaluation Epistemic Practice Social Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



An early version of this paper was presented at the Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association in San Francisco in April 2007. I would like to thank the commentators Baron Reed and James Beebe, and other participants of the session for valuable comments. I would also like to thank Harold Brown, Chang-Seong Hong, Glenn Rawson and anonymous referees of Erkenntnis for valuable comments on early versions of the paper.


  1. Alston, W. (1980). Level confusions in epistemology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, W. (1986). Internalism and externalism in epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 14, 179–221.Google Scholar
  3. Alston, W. (1988). The deontological conception of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspective, 2: Epistemology, 257–299. (Reprinted in W. Alston (1989), Epistemic justification: Essays in the theory of knowledge (pp. 115–152). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.)Google Scholar
  4. Alston, W. (2005). Beyond “justification”: Dimensions of epistemic evaluation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  6. Audi, R. (1998). Epistemology: Contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without awareness: A defense of epistemic externalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. BonJour, L. (1980). Externalist theories of empirical knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. BonJour, L. (1992). Externalism/internalism. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A companion to epistemology (pp. 132–136). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Brandom, R. (1998). Insights and blindspots of reliabilism. Monist, 81, 371–392.Google Scholar
  12. Chisholm, R. (1977). Theory of knowledge (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. (1984). Justification and truth. Philosophical Studies, 46, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2001). Internalism defended. In H. Kornblith (Ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and externalism (pp. 231–260). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Descartes, R. (1628/1985). Rules for the direction of the mind. In J. Cottingham, R, Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trs.), The philosophical writings of descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 9–76). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Descartes, R. (1637/1985). Discourse on the method. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trs.), The philosophical writings of descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 111–151). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Engel, M. (1992). Personal and doxastic justification in epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 67, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faulkner, P. (2000). The social character of testimonial knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, R. (1995). Authoritarian epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23, 147–169. (Reprinted in E. Conee & R. Feldman (2004), Evidentialism: Essays in epistemology (pp. 111–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  21. Fumerton, R. (1995). Metaepistemology and skepticism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond heuristics and biases. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldman, A. (1979). What is justified belief? In G. Pappas (Ed.), Justification and knowledge (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldman, A. (1980). The internalist conception of justification. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kitcher, P. (1992). The naturalists return. Philosophical Review, 101, 53–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Korcz, K. A. (1997). Recent work on the basing relation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 525–550.Google Scholar
  29. Lackey, J. (2006). It takes two to tango: Beyond reductionism and non-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 160–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Plantinga, A. (1993a). Warrant: The current debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Plantinga, A. (1993b). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollock, J., & Cruz, J. (1999). Contemporary theories of knowledge (2nd ed.). Lanham: Roman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, F. (Ed.). (1994). Socializing epistemology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. Sennett, J. (1992). Toward a compatibility theory for internalist and externalist epistemologies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stevenson, L. (1999). First person epistemology. Philosophy, 74, 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Turri, J. (2010). On the relationship between propositional and doxastic justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 312–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zagzebski, L. (2003). The search for the source of the epistemic good. Metaphilosophy, 34, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyRhode Island CollegeProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations