Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 8, pp 1935–1957 | Cite as

A defense of parrying responses to the generality problem

  • Jeffrey Tolly
Article
  • 181 Downloads

Abstract

The generality problem is commonly seen as one of the most pressing issues for process reliabilism. The generality problem starts with the following question: of all the process types exemplified by a given process token, which type is the relevant one for measuring reliability? Defenders of the generality problem claim that process reliabilists have a burden to produce an informative account of process type relevance. As they argue, without such a successful account, the reasonability of process reliabilism is significantly undermined. One way for the reliabilist to respond is to attempt to construct such a theory of type relevance. But another way of responding is to argue that, if finding an account of type relevance is a burden for the reliabilist, then it is also a burden for everyone (or, mostly everyone) else. Thus, the generality problem doesn’t present some unique reason to reject process reliabilism. I call this latter strategy a parrying response. In this essay, I examine the contemporary parrying responses of Michael Bishop and Juan Comesaña, which have both faced recent criticism. I respond to these critics, and argue that parrying responses are far stronger than defenders of the generality problem have appreciated.

Keywords

Process reliabilism Epistemology Externalism Generality problem Justification Warrant 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Much thanks to Ted Warfield, Daniel Immerman, Mike DePaul, Blake Roeber, and Tom Senor for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

References

  1. Adler, J., & Levin, M. (2002). Is the generality problem too general? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, W. (1985). Concepts of epistemic justification. The Monist, 68(1), 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alston, W. (1988). An internalist externalism. Synthese, 74, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alston, W. (1995). How to think about reliability. Philosophical Topics, 23(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, A. (2011). An essay on evidence. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dame: University of Notre.Google Scholar
  6. Audi, R. (1994). Dispositional beliefs and dispositions to believe. Nous, 28(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, K. (2008). Epistemic luck and the generality problem. Philosophical Studies, 139(3), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beddor, B., & Goldman, A. (2015). Reliabilist epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/reliabilism/.
  9. Beebe, J. R. (2004). The generality problem, statistical relevance and the tri-level hypothesis. Nous, 38(1), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop, M. A. (2010). Why the generality problem is everybody’s problem. Philosophical Studies, 151, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brueckner, A., & Buford, C. T. (2013). Becker on epistemic luck. Philosophical Studies, 163, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comesaña, J. (2006). A well-founded solution to the generality problem. Philosophical Studies, 129(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conee, E. (2013). The specificity of the generality problem. Philosophical Studies, 163, 751–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (1998). The generality problem for reliabilism. Philosophical Studies, 89(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2001). Internalism defended. American Philosophical Quarterly, 38, 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2002). Typing problems. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 65(1), 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2008). Evidence. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New essays (pp. 83–104). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dougherty, T. (2011). In defense of propositionalism about evidence. In T. Dougherty (Ed.), Evidentialism and its discontents (pp. 226–232). Oxford:OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dutant, J., & Olsson, E. J. (2013). Is there a statistical solution to the generality problem? Erkenntnis, 78, 1347–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, R. (1985). Reliability and justification. The Monist, 68(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feldman, R. (1988). Having evidence. In D. Austin (Ed.), Philosophical analysis (pp. 83–104). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldman, A. (1979). What is justified belief. In G. S. Pappas (Ed.), Justification and knowledge (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greco, J. (2010). Achieving knowledge. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hajek, A. (2007). The reference class problem is your problem too. Synthese, 156, 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heller, M. (1995). The simple solution to the generality problem. Nous, 29(4), 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  29. Leplin, J. (2007). In defense of reliabilism. Philosophical Studies, 134, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lepock, C. (2009). How to make the generality problem work for you. Acta Analytica, 24, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matheson, J. D. (2015). Is there a well-founded solution to the generality problem? Philosophical Studies, 172, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollock, J. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Reichenbach, H. (1949). The theory of probability. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schmitt, F. F. (1992). Knowledge and belief. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in perspective. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wallis, C. (1994). Truth-ratios, process, task, and knowledge. Synthese, 98, 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations