Tags: Yale Som Essay Questions 2013French Doctoral DissertationsOur School Essay In UrduDfid Business PlanEnzym Immuno EssayReview Of Literature On Customer Satisfaction
They argue that evidentialism is an asset virtually everywhere in epistemology, from getting started legitimately to refuting skepticism.
It should be no surprise, then, that the traditional view holds that one is justified only if one has adequate reasons for belief.
Thus, evidentialism can be thought of as the default, or commonsense, conception of epistemic justification.
One believes it of theory of epistemic justification; one can formulate various divergent evidentialist theories by providing different analyses of its constituent concepts. Evidence for or against p is, roughly, any information relevant to the truth or falsity of p.
The present section focuses on the central notion of evidence and explicates the various ways that one can restrict the sorts of things that count as evidence. This is why we think that fingerprints and DNA left at the scene of the crime, eye-witness testimony, and someone’s whereabouts at the time the crime was committed all count as evidence for or against the hypothesis that the suspect committed the crime.
For example, one might not believe p simply because one fails to consider whether or not p is true, yet one may nevertheless have good enough reason to think p is true and so be justified in believing p.
Second, one can have good enough reason to believe p and still believe it as a result of something other than this good reason.
All evidentialist theories conform to (EVI), but various divergent theories of evidentialism can be formulated.
Before turning to these issues, it is worth noting that evidentialism is also a prominent theory in the philosophy of religion.
Thus, while (EVI) is often referred to as of epistemic theory.
In this light, (EVI) can be seen as the central, guiding thesis of evidentialism.