|Appears in Collections:||Law and Philosophy Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Understanding Undermining Defeat|
|Citation:||Melis G (2014) Understanding Undermining Defeat. Philosophical Studies, 170 (3), pp. 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0238-z|
|Abstract:||Taking the inspiration from some points made by Scott Sturgeon and Albert Casullo, I articulate a view according to which an important difference between undermining and overriding defeaters is that the former require the subject to engage in some higher-order epistemic thinking, while the latter don’t. With the help of some examples, I argue that underminers push the cognizer to reflect on the way she formed a belief by challenging the epistemic worthiness of either the source of justification or the specific justificatory process. By contrast, overriders needn’t pose any such challenge. I also consider some problems for the proposed view, and I put forward some possible solutions. Finally, I provide some details on how undermining defeat works in different cases.|
|Rights:||This is the accepted version of an article whose final and definitive form is published in Philosophical Studies. Philosophical Studies is available online at: link.springer.com. The article is available at the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0238-z. Please cite the published version only|
|Understanding Undermining Defeat (final).pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||181.92 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.