Introduction to Modal Epistemology After Rationalism

  • Bob FischerEmail author
  • Felipe Leon
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 378)


We’re justified in believing some alethic modal claims: the losing team could have won; that bridge could collapse; two and two couldn’t equal five; etc. The epistemology of modality is concerned with the nature of this justification. How can we get it? How can we lose it? And what, exactly, explains why it’s available to us at all? The goal of this book is to give a hearing to those who are moving away from the purer strains of rationalism in modal epistemology, finding room for experience to play a larger justificatory role—or even the only role. At the same time, it makes room for those who want to construct modal epistemologies that answer primarily to ordinary modal claims rather than the ones that have been of interest to metaphysicians and philosophers of mind—e.g., teletransportation, disembodied minds, etc.


Actual World Justify Belief Metaphysical Possibility Modal Knowledge Modal Claim 
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.


  1. Bealer, G. (1999). A theory of the a priori. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 29–55.Google Scholar
  2. Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1990). Science and necessity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bueno, O., & Shalkowski, S.A. (2014). Modalism and theoretical virtues: Toward an epistemology of modality. Philosophical Studies 1–19.Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Elder, C. (2005). Real natures and familiar objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Evnine, S. (2008). Modal epistemology: Our knowledge of necessity and possibility. Philosophy Compass, 3(4), 664–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hill, C. (1997). Imaginability, conceivability, possibility, and the mind-body problem. Philosophical Studies, 87, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kment, B. (2014). Modality and explanatory reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McLeod, S. (2005). Recent work on modal epistemology. Philosophical Books, 46, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peacocke, C. (1998). Being known. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pruss, A. (2015). Possibility is not consistency. Philosophical Studies, 172(9), 2341–2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vaidya, A. (2015). The epistemology of modality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). URL =
  13. Van Inwagen, P. (1998). Modal epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 92, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Yablo, S. (1993). Is conceivability a guide to possibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Behavioral and Social Sciences DivisionEl Camino CollegeTorranceUSA

Personalised recommendations