NOTE: This item is not available outside the Texas A&M University network. Texas A&M affiliated users who are off campus can access the item through NetID and password authentication or by using TAMU VPN. Non-affiliated individuals should request a copy through their local library's interlibrary loan service.
In defense of the gypsy lawyer: an analysis of doxastic justification
dc.creator | Mittag, Daniel Marlin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-06-07T22:53:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-06-07T22:53:28Z | |
dc.date.created | 1998 | |
dc.date.issued | 1998 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1998-THESIS-M58 | |
dc.description | Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to digital@library.tamu.edu, referencing the URI of the item. | en |
dc.description | Includes bibliographical references: p. 72-73. | en |
dc.description | Issued also on microfiche from Lange Micrographics. | en |
dc.description.abstract | It is widely recognized that in order for one's belief to be justified (in the sense of justification thought to be necessary for knowledge, i.e., doxastic justification) one's belief must be based on that which justifies it. Epistemologists, however, differ about the exact relation that the evidence must bear to one's belief in order for that belief to be doxastically justified. The various analyses of the basing relation that have been proposed can be divided into two main categories: causal accounts and non-causal accounts. In the second chapter I will explicate the central issues involved in providing an adequate causal account of the basing relation. I will consider various attempts to salvage causal accounts in light of Keith Lehrer's counterexample to such formulations of the basing relation, and I will argue that no satisfactory defense of causal theories has so far been given. Consequently, the correct explication of the basing relation must be noncausal. Through the consideration of various non-causal formulations of the basing relation in chapter three, I argue that the correct non-causal account must be reflective in nature. As a result, I argue that Lehrer's account is inadequate, and I conclude that the reflective account provided by Richard Foley is correct. | en |
dc.format.medium | electronic | en |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Texas A&M University | |
dc.rights | This thesis was part of a retrospective digitization project authorized by the Texas A&M University Libraries in 2008. Copyright remains vested with the author(s). It is the user's responsibility to secure permission from the copyright holder(s) for re-use of the work beyond the provision of Fair Use. | en |
dc.subject | philosophy. | en |
dc.subject | Major philosophy. | en |
dc.title | In defense of the gypsy lawyer: an analysis of doxastic justification | en |
dc.type | Thesis | en |
thesis.degree.discipline | philosophy | en |
thesis.degree.name | M.A. | en |
thesis.degree.level | Masters | en |
dc.type.genre | thesis | en |
dc.type.material | text | en |
dc.format.digitalOrigin | reformatted digital | en |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
Digitized Theses and Dissertations (1922–2004)
Texas A&M University Theses and Dissertations (1922–2004)
Request Open Access
This item and its contents are restricted. If this is your thesis or dissertation, you can make it open-access. This will allow all visitors to view the contents of the thesis.