![]() ![]() ![]() A valuable work that will repay close examination by anyone concerned with what may well be the single most important problem in the theory of knowledge.-Choice A penetrating analysis of difficulties in the major types of foundationalist theory and a defense of a novel version of the coherence theory of epistemic justification. It should be of interest to philosophers of every persuasion.-Ernest Sosa, Brown UniversityĪn important work. Thorough and careful, it is also well conceived and well written and does not get lost in details. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge is important as a very lucid and perceptive treatment of the coherence/foundations controversy. The writing style is straightforward, clear, and polished.-Peter Klein, Rutgers University Each step in the argument is clearly motivated and many of the steps are original. The overall structure of the book is well conceived. This is a very fine work, something people will be reading and reacting to for some time to come.-William P. The entire work is outstanding for the way BonJour bends over backward to formulate and answer objections to his positions. "synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.īonJour develops what is undoubtedly the strongest version of a coherence theory of epistemic justification that has been produced. The book concludes with an account of the correspondence theory of empirical truth and an argument that systems of empirical belief which satisfy the coherentist standard of justification are also likely to be true. In the second part he explores a coherence theory of empirical knowledge and argues that a defensible theory must incorporate an adequate conception of observation. The first part of the book offers a systematic exposition of foundationalist views and formulates a general argument to show that no variety of foundationalism provides an acceptable account of empirical justification. Here BonJour sets out the most extensive antifoundationalist argument yet developed. What looks like a pyramid is in fact a dead end, a blind alley. For the foundationalist like Descartes each piece of knowledge can be stacked to build a pyramid. How must our knowledge be systematically organized in order to justify our beliefs? There are two options-the solid securing of the ancient foundationalist pyramid or the risky adventure of the new coherentist raft. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |