El problema de la justificación del conocimiento básico

  • María Dolores García Arnaldos Universidad CEU-San Pablo (Madrid). PhD USC ORCID: 0000-0001-9998-8060
Palabras clave: conocimiento básico, conocimiento lógico, habilitación, justificación inferencial, justificación no-inferencial.

Resumen

El objeto de este artículo es analizar el problema de la justificación del conocimiento básico y ofrecer una solución basada en un tipo de justificación deflacionaria no-evidencialista a partir de la noción de habilitación (entitlement) de T. Burge y la de garantía racional de C. Wright. El problema, en el caso del conocimiento básico lógico, es que justificar las reglas lógicas inferencialmente supone utilizar principios lógicos, con lo cual se genera un círculo vicioso. Examinamos la viabilidad del enfoque no-inferencialista de Wright y sostendremos que una garantía racional es una respuesta viable para el problema de la justificación del conocimiento lógico básico.

Descargas

La información sobre descargas todavía no está disponible.

Citas

Aristóteles. Tratados de Lógica (Organon). vol. 2: Sobre la interpretación; Analíticos primeros; Analíticos segundos, Madrid: Gredos, D.L. 1995.

Audi, R. Epistemology. A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge, 1998.

Ayer, A. (ed.). El positivismo lógico. México: F.C.E., 1965.

Bealer, G. “A Theory of the A priori”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. vol. 81, 2000, pp. 1-30.

Boghossian, P. A. “Blind Reasoning”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supl., vol. 77, 2003, pp. 225-48. También en P. Boghossian, Content and Justification: Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 250-267.

Bonjour, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Bonjour, L. In Defense on Pure Reason: a Rationalist Account of A Priori Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Bonjour, L. Epistemology. Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. 2nd ed. 2010.

Bonjour, L. “The Myth of Knowledge”. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 2010, pp. 57-83.

Burge, T. “Content Preservation”. The Philosophical Review, 102, 1993, pp. 457-488.

Burge, T. “Perceptual Entitlement”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68 (3), 2003, pp. 503-548.

Burge, T. Cognition through understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Carnap, R. Logische Syntax der Sprache. 1934. (English translation: The Logical Syntax of Language, New York: Humanities, 1937).

Carroll, L. “What the tortoise said to Achilles”. Mind, vol. 4, 14, 1895, pp. 278–280.

Casullo, A. A Priori Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Coffa, J. A. The semantic tradition from Kant to Carnap. To the Vienna Station. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Cohen, Morris R., & Nagel, E. An Introduction to Logic. Ed. by John Corcoran. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.

Conee, E. & Feldman, R. “Evidentialism”. Earl Conee & Richard Feldman, Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Dancy, J. Introducción a la epistemología contemporánea. Madrid: Tecnos, 1993.

Danto, A. “Freedom and Forebearance”. Freedom and Determinism, New York: Random House, 1965, pp. 45-63.

Davidson, D. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 1974.

Davidson, D. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Davidson, D. “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge”, In E. Lepore (ed.) Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1986.

De Paul, M. (ed.). Resurrecting Old Fashioned Foundationalism. Lanham. Rowman and Littlefield, 2001.

Dogramaci, S. “Apriority”. D. G. Fara, & G. Russell, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, New York: Routledge, 2012, pp. 768-782.

Feldman, R. Epistemology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Fumerton, R. “Classical Foundationalism”. En De Paul, M. (ed.), 2001.

Fumerton, R. “Theories of Justification”. Paul K. Moser (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 204-233.

Fumerton, R. “Knowledge by Acquaintance vs. Description”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/>. 2009, Consultado: 05/01/2013

Garcia-Arnaldos, M. D. “Una justificación no-inferencial de las inferencias básicas”. In Eighth Meeting of the Spanish Society for Analytic Philosophy. SEFA. Oviedo: KRK Ediciones, 2016, pp. 79-86. ISBN: 978-84-8367-547-2.

Garcia-Arnaldos, M. D. “Elizabeth Anscombe: razones y acciones”. In Mª Gloria Ríos Guardiola, Mª Belén Hernández Glez., E. Esteban Bernabé (eds.). Mujeres con luz. Murcia: Editorial EDITUM, colección Campus Mare Nostrum, 2017, pp. 89-108. ISBN 978-84-17157-41-8.

Gettier, E. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. Analysis. 23, 1963, pp. 121-123.

Goldman, A. I. “A Causal Theory of Knowing”. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 1967, pp. 357-372.

Goldman, A. I. “What is Justified Belief?”. George S. Pappas (ed.). Justification and Knowledge, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.

Goldman, A. I. Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology: Essays. Oxford: OUP, 2012.

Haack, S. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Hale, B. “Basic Logical Knowledge”. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, vol. 51, Logic, Thought and Language, 2002, pp. 279-304.

Hetherington, S. “Fallibilism”. 2005. Recuperado el 14 de 09 de 2012, de Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

Hofmann, F. “Three kinds of reliabilism”. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action, 2012, pp. 1-22. DOI:10.1080/13869795.2013.738305

Klein, P. “Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons”. Philosophical Perspectives. vol. 13, 1999, pp. 297-325.

Kornblith, H. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lehrer, K., & Paxson, T. J. “Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief”. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 66, nº 8, 1969, pp. 225-237.

Lehrer, K. Theory of Knowledge. Boulder: Westview Press,1990.

Mcgee, V. “A Counterexample to Modus Ponens”. Journal of Philosophy, 82, 1985, pp. 462-471.

Moretti, L. & Piazza, T. “Transmission of Justification and Warrant”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/transmission-justification-warrant/.

Moser, P. K. “A priori”. P. K. Moser, The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford: OUP, 2002.

Moser, P. K.; Mulder, D. H.; Trout, J. D. The Theory of Knowledge. A Thematic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Peirce, C. S. “The first rule of reason”, Collected Papers, vol. 1, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Peirce, C. S. The Essential Writings. E. C. Moore (ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Reimp. Prometheus Books, 1998

Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co, 1959.

Popper, K. R. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Pryor, J. “There is Immediate Justification”. In Matthias Steup & Ernest Sosa (eds.). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2005, pp. 181-202.

Quine, W.V. “Truth by Convention”. En W. Quine. The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, New York: Random House, 1966; (2ª ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976).

Quine, W.V. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Russell, B. “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description”. PAS New Series, Vol. XI, 1910-1911, pp. 108-128.

Russell, B. Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912.

Rysiew, P. “Epistemic Contextualism”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/contextualism-epistemology/>.

Schechter, J. “Deductive Reasoning”, The Encyclopedia of the Mind. edited by Hal Pashler, SAGE Publishing, forthcoming.

Sellars, W. “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind”. Science, Perception and Reality, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963.

Smithies, D. “Why Justification Matters”. In David K. Henderson-John Greco, Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology. Oxford: OUP, 2015. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199642632.003.0010

Sosa, E. Knowledge in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Sosa, E. & M. Steup. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Cambridge: MA, Blackwell Publishers, 2005.

Williams, M. Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Skepticism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991.

Williams, M. Problems of knowledge. A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford: OUP, 2001.

Williams, M. “Doing without Immediate Justification”. M. Steup & E. Sosa (ed.). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 202-16.

Williamson, T. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2000.

Wittgenstein, L. On Certainty. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright. Trad. G. E. M Anscombe & Denis Paul. Oxford: Blackwell, 1969.

Wright, C. “Facts and Certainty”, Proceedings of the British Academy. 71, 1985, pp. 429-72. Reprinted in Th. Baldwin and T. Smiley (eds.) Studies in the Philosophy of Logic and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 51-94,.

Wright, C. “On Basic Logical Knowledge”. Philosophical Studies, 106, 2001, pp. 41-85.

Wright, C. “Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)?”. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, vol. 78 (1), 2004a, pp. 167-212.

Wright, C. “Intuition, Entitlement and the Epistemology of Logical Laws”. Dialectica, 58, 2004b. pp. 155-175.

Wright, C. “Comments on Paul Boghossian, ‘What Is Inference?’”. Philosophical Studies, 169, 2014, pp. 27-37.

Publicado
2019-02-25
Cómo citar
García Arnaldos, M. D. (2019). El problema de la justificación del conocimiento básico. Anales Del Seminario De Historia De La Filosofía, 36(1), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.5209/ASHF.63369
Sección
Estudios