Justification and the uniqueness thesis again - A response to Anantharaman

Luis Rosa

doi:10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718

Justification and the uniqueness thesis again - A response to Anantharaman

Luis Rosa

Department of Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

I reinforce my defense of permissivism about the rationality of doxastic attitudes on the face of a certain body of evidence against criticism published in this journal by Anantharaman. After making some conceptual clarifications, I manage to show that at least one of my original arguments pro-permissivism is left unscathed by Anantharaman's points.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	95-100
Number of pages	6
Journal	Logos and Episteme
Volume	7
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718
State	Published - 2016

Keywords

Epistemic rationality
Permissiveness
Uniqueness thesis

Access to Document

10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718

Cite this

@article{e01197fe7c0f4f8c8e95058f0a4c01e0,

title = "Justification and the uniqueness thesis again - A response to Anantharaman",

abstract = "I reinforce my defense of permissivism about the rationality of doxastic attitudes on the face of a certain body of evidence against criticism published in this journal by Anantharaman. After making some conceptual clarifications, I manage to show that at least one of my original arguments pro-permissivism is left unscathed by Anantharaman's points.",

keywords = "Epistemic rationality, Permissiveness, Uniqueness thesis",

author = "Luis Rosa",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Logos \& Episteme, 2016.",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "95--100",

journal = "Logos and Episteme",

issn = "2069-0533",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Justification and the uniqueness thesis again - A response to Anantharaman

AU - Rosa, Luis

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Logos & Episteme, 2016.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - I reinforce my defense of permissivism about the rationality of doxastic attitudes on the face of a certain body of evidence against criticism published in this journal by Anantharaman. After making some conceptual clarifications, I manage to show that at least one of my original arguments pro-permissivism is left unscathed by Anantharaman's points.

AB - I reinforce my defense of permissivism about the rationality of doxastic attitudes on the face of a certain body of evidence against criticism published in this journal by Anantharaman. After making some conceptual clarifications, I manage to show that at least one of my original arguments pro-permissivism is left unscathed by Anantharaman's points.

KW - Epistemic rationality

KW - Permissiveness

KW - Uniqueness thesis

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85044412970

U2 - 10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718

DO - 10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME2016718

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85044412970

SN - 2069-0533

VL - 7

SP - 95

EP - 100

JO - Logos and Episteme

JF - Logos and Episteme

IS - 1

ER -

Justification and the uniqueness thesis again - A response to Anantharaman

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this