Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Veridically perceiving puts us in a better epistemic position than, say, hallucinating does, at least in that veridical perception affords knowledge of our environment in a way that hallucination does not. But is there any further epistemic advantage? Some authors have recently argued that veridical perception provides a superior epistemic benefit over hallucination not just concerning knowledge, but concerning justification as well. This contrasts with a traditional view according to which experience provides justification irrespective of whether it’s veridical or hallucinatory. I think both views are mistaken. Although this traditional view should be rejected in favor of one on which some hallucinations are epistemically worse than veridical perceptions (and some are not), I don’t believe there is good reason to think that the mere fact of hallucination—or factivity more generally—has any consequences for justification. Susanna Schellenberg has endorsed both the traditional and the factive views (for different elements or kinds of perceptual justification), and I critique her views in detail, though I also draw out more general epistemological lessons about factivity and evidence.
Veridically perceiving puts us in a better epistemic position than, say, hallucinating does, at least in that veridical perception affords knowledge of our environment in a way that hallucination does not. But is there any further epistemic advantage? Some authors have recently argued that veridical perception provides a superior epistemic benefit over hallucination not just concerning knowledge, but concerning justification as well. This contrasts with a traditional view according to which experience provides justification irrespective of whether it’s veridical or hallucinatory. I think both views are mistaken. Although this traditional view should be rejected in favor of one on which some hallucinations are epistemically worse than veridical perceptions (and some are not), I don’t believe there is good reason to think that the mere fact of hallucination—or factivity more generally—has any consequences for justification. Susanna Schellenberg has endorsed both the traditional and the factive views (for different elements or kinds of perceptual justification), and I critique her views in detail, though I also draw out more general epistemological lessons about factivity and evidence.
Are perceptual experiences epistemically appraisable? In this paper, I argue, contra Siegel (Rationality of perception, Oxford 2017) that they are not (§§ 2–3). I also show how the problem of hijacked experience can be solved without endorsing the view that perceptual experience is epistemically appraisable (§§ 4–5). A key idea behind my proposal is a disjunctivist view on rationalising and epistemic powers of perceptual experience.
I shall use 'epistemic warrant' and 'epistemic justification' interchangeably for a normative property that provides a good route to true belief and knowledge. 1 Here are two facts:FACT ONE: Beliefs based on taking perceptual experiences at face value are defeasibly epistemically warranted. FACT TWO: Defeasibly taking perceptual experience at face value is a reliable route to true belief.Epistemologists disagree over their relationship.Reliabilists believe the second helps explain the first. And by "explain" the reliabilist sets out to really, genuinely explain, to "state conditions that clarifies the underlying source of justificational status,. . . conditions [that are] appropriately deep or revelatory," not simply conditions that state 1 There are at least four senses of 'justification' in epistemology. (1) In its broadest use in English, 'justification' involves meeting a norm or standard. Applied to epistemology, for any norm or standard relevant to the evaluation of beliefs from the point of view of promoting, acquiring, or sustaining true belief and knowledge, a belief or believer or activity may be 'justified' relative to that standard. (2) Focusing on the evaluation of belief for knowledge, 'epistemic justification' is interchangeable with 'warrant'-that normative property of belief that provides a good route to truth and knowledge.(3) When a warrant for knowledge involves operative reasons supporting the belief, those reasons are a justification for the belief. These reasons may be entirely first-order, object-directed. (4) When a warrant for knowledge involves critical reasons-warranted beliefs about one's mental states as providing warrants for belief, those critical reasons provide a critical justification. Critical justifications ground the activity of justifying a belief, to giving reasons in favor of the truth or the belief-worthiness of the belief. Many epistemologists use 'justification' in this sense. Justifications in the third and fourth senses are not (always) required for warrant. Perceptual beliefs, the beliefs of pre-linguistic children, and the (possible) beliefs of higher non-human animals are frequently warranted and knowledge without justifications in the sense of warrants involving reasons or critical reasons (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.