Order:
  1. Seemings and Moore’s Paradox.R. M. Farley - forthcoming - Erkenntnis:1-22.
    Phenomenal conservatives claim that seemings are sui generis mental states and can thus provide foundational non-doxastic justification for beliefs. Many of their critics deny this, claiming, instead, that seemings can be reductively analyzed in terms of other mental states—either beliefs, inclinations to believe, or beliefs about one’s evidence—that cannot provide foundational non-doxastic justification. In this paper, I argue that no tenable semantic reduction of ‘seems’ can be formulated in terms of the three reductive analyses that have been proposed by critics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. The Sellarsian Dilemma.R. M. Farley - 2017 - Southwest Philosophy Review 33 (1):115-123.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. A Rossian Account of the Normativity of Logic.R. M. Farley & Deke Caiñas Gould - 2022 - Southwest Philosophy Review 38 (1):103-113.
    Normativism is the view that logic provides rules for correct reasoning. Some influential critics of normativism, such as Gilbert Harman, claim that logical rules provide reasoners with bad or misleading standards. Others, such as Gillian Russell, claim that logic is a descriptive subject and thus cannot, given Hume’s law, provide rules for reasoning. We think these critics are mistaken. Our aim in this paper is to defend normativism by sketching an alternative way of thinking about the normative force of logical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Casullo on Experiential Justification.R. M. Farley - 2020 - Logos and Episteme 11 (2):179-194.
    In A Priori Justification, Albert Casullo argues that extant attempts to explicate experiential justification—by stipulation, introspection, conceptual analysis, thought experimentation, and/or appeal to intuitions about hypothetical cases—are unsuccessful. He draws the following conclusion: “armchair methods” such as these are inadequate to the task. Instead, empirical methods should be used to investigate the distinction between experiential and non-experiential justification and to address questions concerning the nature, extent, and existence of the a priori. In this essay, I show that Casullo has not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark