Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rj9fg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-14T18:28:07.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanationist Seeking Agreement with Bergmann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2025

William G. Lycan
William G. Lycan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
*
Email: william.lycan@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper expresses extensive agreement with Michael Bergmann’s position in Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition, but (i) offers a simpler response to the skeptic, (ii) takes issue with Bergmann’s strong claim that an “evil demon” hypothesis is as good an explanation of our sensory experiences as is the natural realist explanation, and (iii) corrects a misunderstanding about explanationists’ canons of theory preference.

Keywords

skepticismexplanationismevil demontheory preferenceconservatismneatnesstestability
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , First View , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Inc

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. (1998). Intuition and the autonomy of philosophy.” In DePaul, M. & Ramsey, W. (Eds.), Rethinking intuition. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2021). Radical skepticism and epistemic intuition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2022a). Concerns about Lycan’s commonsensism. Metaphilosophy, 53(5), 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2022b). Replies to Nagel, Neta and Pritchard. Analysis, 82(4), 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. (2017). Inference to the best explanation, Bayesianism, and knowledge. In McCain, K., & Poston, T. (Eds.), Best explanations: New essays on inference to the best explanation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1994). Conservatism in epistemology. Noûs, 28(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. (2022). Explanatory justification, seeming truth, humility, question-begging, and evidence from intuitions. Metaphilosophy, 53(5), 583–592.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2002). How to Reid Moore. Philosophical Quarterly, 52(209), 544–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2016). Inferential appearances. In Coppenger, B., & Bergmann, M. (Eds.), Intellectual assurance: Essays on traditional epistemic internalism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1971). Why not skepticism? Philosophical Forum, 2(3), 283–298.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1974). Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgment and justification. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2012). Explanationist rebuttals (Coherentism Defended Again). Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2019). On evidence in philosophy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2022). Replies to Bergmann and Conee. Metaphilosophy, 53(5), 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, K. (2014). Evidentialism and epistemic justification. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G.E. (1959/1962). Four forms of scepticism. In Moore, G. E. (Ed.), Philosophical papers. Collier Books. Originally published in London by George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2004). Skepticism, abductivism, and the explanatory gap. Philosophical Issues, 14(1), 296–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. 2024. “Intuitions as evidence in philosophy.” In Green, M. & Michel, J. (Eds.), William Lycan on mind, meaning, and method. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Poston, T. (2014). Reason and explanation: A defense of explanatory coherentism. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, W. (2006). Can a coherentist be an externalist? Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 6(2), 269–280.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (1994). Beyond formalism: naming and necessity for human beings. Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912). The problems of philosophy. Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2015). Ockham’s Razors. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, C. (Ed.) (2013). Seemings and justification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. (1990). Cartesian skepticism and inference to the best explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 87(11), 658–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar