The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism
Abstract
Virtually all philosophers agree that for a belief to be epistemically justified, it must satisfy certain conditions. Perhaps it must be supported by evidence, or perhaps it must be reliably formed, or perhaps there is some other ‘good-making’ features it must have. But does a belief’s justification also require some sort of awareness of its good-making features? The answer to this question has been hotly contested in contemporary epistemology, creating a deep divide among its practitioners. Internalists insist that such awareness is required for justification whereas externalists insist that it is not. The first part of this book argues that internalism faces an inescapable dilemma: either it leads to vicious regress problems and, ultimately, radical skepticism or it is entirely unmotivated. The second part of the book begins by developing the author’s own externalist theory of justification, one imposing both a proper function and a no-defeater requirement. It concludes by demonstrating the failure of two prominent critiques of externalism: that it is infected with epistemic circularity and that it cannot respond adequately to skepticism. Together, the two parts of the book provide a decisive refutation of internalism and a sustained defense of externalism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind
Tye, M. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6712.001.0001 · Cited by 1,718
Plantinga, A. (1993) · doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001 · Cited by 1,703
Plantinga, A. (2000) · doi:10.1093/0195131932.001.0001 · Cited by 1,291
Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense
Neander, K. (1991) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289610 · Cited by 887
What's Wrong with Moore's Argument?
Pryor, J. (2004) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00034.x · Cited by 705
Cited by
Aarnio, M. L. (2010) · Philosophical Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00183.x · Cited by 444
Epistemic dimensions of gaslighting: peer-disagreement, self-trust, and epistemic injustice
Spear, A. D. (2023) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2019.1610051 · Cited by 97
“I take epistemic reasons to be the kinds of reasons that, when possessed to a sufficient degree by a subject, typically confer epistemic justification on her beliefs (BonJour 2003, Ch. 1; Bergmann 2006, Ch. 1).”
BackgroundRational Disagreement after Full Disclosure
Bergmann, M. (2009) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/e1742360009000756 · Cited by 91
Self-citationConnecting epistemic injustice and justified belief in health-related conspiracies
Annesley, K. (2020) · Ethics, Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100545 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Bergmann, M.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2006-05-18
- OpenAlex
- W2505340446
- Cited by
- 504
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 11.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0199275742.001.0001
- The paper
- Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199275742.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.