The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Skeptic and the Dogmatist
Abstract
this paper is devoted to articulating and defending a dogmatist account of perceptual justification which enables us to reject the skeptic's arguments that we have no justified perceptual beliefs. I will present the positive case for my account in III, and I will defend it against an important objection in IV. My primary concern will be questions about perceptual justification rather than questions about perceptual knowledge. This is because the connections between justification and knowledge are complicated. I believe that the account of perceptual justification I will be arguing for can be extended to provide an account of perceptual knowledge, as well. But I will not attempt to do that. 6 I will also be concentrating throughout on questions about what propositions we have justification for believing. When we're evaluating the epistemic merit of a belief you hold, we're sometimes concerned with more than just whether it's a belief in some proposition you have justification for. We also take into consideration what sorts of justification, if any, your belief is based on. One may have very good reasons for believing p, but base one's belief in p
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
Kripke, S. A. (1972) · Semantics of Natural Language · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 · Cited by 7,028
The Intrinsic Quality of Experience
Harman, G. (1990) · Philosophical Perspectives · doi:10.2307/2214186 · Cited by 1,409
Cited by
Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction
Rosen, G. (2010) · Modality · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565818.003.0007 · Cited by 1,285
Pritchard, D. (2005) · doi:10.1093/019928038x.001.0001 · Cited by 874
What's Wrong with Moore's Argument?
Pryor, J. (2004) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00034.x · Cited by 705
Self-citationBasic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge
COHEN, S. (2002) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00204.x · Cited by 543
(Anti‐)Sceptics Simple and Subtle: G.E. Moore and John McDowell*
WRIGHT, C. (2002) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00205.x · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Pryor, J.
- Venue
- Noûs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 517-549
- ISSN
- 0029-4624 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0068
- OpenAlex
- W2100405054
- Cited by
- 1,127
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 72.19
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0029-4624.00277
- The paper
- Pryor, J. (2000). The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00277
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.