Meta-epistemic defeat

2Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

An account of meta-epistemic defeaters—distinct from traditional (first-order) epistemic defeaters—is motivated and defended, drawing from case studies involving epistemic error-theory (e.g., Olson 2011, Reasons for belief; cf., Streumer 2012, J Philos 110:1–25) and epistemic relativism (e.g., MacFarlane 2005, Oxford Stud Epistemol 1:197–233; 2011; 2014, Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications). Mechanisms of traditional epistemic defeat and meta-epistemic defeat are compared and contrasted, and some new puzzles are introduced.

References Powered by Scopus

Knowledge and Lotteries

1222Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Elusive knowledge

1193Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Knowledge and Practical Interests

993Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The Structure of Defeat: Pollock’s Evidentialism, Lackey’s Framework, and Prospects for Reliabilism

10Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Higher-order defeat in realist moral epistemology

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Carter, J. A. (2018). Meta-epistemic defeat. Synthese, 195(7), 2877–2896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1187-9

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

80%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Philosophy 4

67%

Social Sciences 1

17%

Arts and Humanities 1

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free