The aim of this article is twofold: First, it is argued that Tyler Burge's case for externalism in the philosophy of mind, which is based on Hilary Putnam's twin-earth thought experiment, fails. Second, it is shown that a convincing argument for externalism can be nonetheless construed by relying on Putnam's thought experiment.

In this essay, I discuss three readings of Descartes’ Meditations . According to the first reading, “I exist” is for Descartes the foundation of our knowledge. This reading is dismissed on the grounds that, in his view, as long as God’s existence is not proven there is a good reason to doubt this proposition. Proponents of the second reading claim that there are two kinds of Cartesian knowledge: perfect and imperfect knowledge. The meditator has imperfect knowledge of “I exist” before God’s existence is proven. Subsequently, she acquires perfect knowledge of various metaphysical theorems. This reading is repudiated, too. I argue for a third reading, according to which “I think” – and not “I exist” – is the foundation of our knowledge.

Ever since Fred Dretske (1970) questioned closure, a denial of this principle has been among the standard options for a resolution of epistemological paradoxes such as the skeptical paradox (Cohen 1988) and the lottery paradox (Harman 1973). In this article, the author shall argue that all possible solutions of the latter paradox can only be defended if Multi-Premise Closure is rejected. These possible solutions are contextualism and both simple and sensitive moderate invariantism. It will be shown that skepticism and the denial of Single-Premise Closure are not possible solutions of the lottery paradox. The upshot of the discussion here will be that while Single-Premise Closure is beyond reasonable doubt, resolving the lottery paradox forces one to abandon Multi-Premise Closure.

The aim of this article is twofold: First, it is argued that Tyler Burge's case for externalism in the philosophy of mind, which is based on Hilary Putnam's twin-earth thought experiment, failS. Second, it is shown that a convincing argument for externalism can be nonetheless construed by relying on Putnam's thought experiment.

The aim of this article is twofold: First, it is argued that Tyler Burge’s case for externalism in the philosophy of mind, which is based on Hilary Putnam’s twin-earth thought experiment, fails. Second, it is shown that a convincing argument for externalism can be nonetheless construed by relying on Putnam’s thought experiment.

Two major interpretations have been advanced for the sum res cogitans passage in Descartes's Second Meditation. According to the first interpretation, he argues in this passage that only thinking belongs to his essence. According to the second interpretation, due to Anthony Kenny, Harry Frankfurt and others, no such claim is defended by Descartes. Rather, it is his aim to argue that only thinking can be ascribed to him with certainty. In this essay, it will be shown that the "naive", essentialist reading of the sum res cogitans reasoning is closer to the text than the perhaps more sophisticated, purely epistemic reading. Although the interpretation defended here is not new, it will be arrived at by way of (hopefully) new arguments.

Two major arguments have been advanced for the claim that there is a transmission failure in G. E. Moore’s famous proof of an external world. The first argument, due to Crispin Wright, is based on an epistemological doctrine now known as “conservatism.” Proponents of the second argument, like Nicholas Silins, invoke probabilistic considerations, most important among them Bayes’ theorem. The aim of this essay is to defend Moore’s proof against these two arguments. It is shown, first, that Wright’s argument founders because one of its premises, viz, conservatism, invites skepticism and must therefore be rejected. Then the probabilistic argument is challenged, yet not because its formal part is dubious, but rather on the grounds that it incorporates as an implicit premise an unconvincing philosophical claim. Finally, the most promising objection to dogmatism – understood here as the negation of conservatism – is repudiated.

The aim of this essay is to show that the key innovations of Karl Popper's philosophy of science can be disentangled from the prevailing conventionalism in his main work "The Logic of Scientific Discovery." Popper's falsificationism and his rejection of justification can be detached from his view that the criterion of demarcation, the basic statements ("Basissätze") and the claim that laws are falsifiable hypotheses are stipulations.

The most important argument for the incompatibility of semantic externalism and a priori self-knowledge is the so-called McKinsey paradox. In this essay, it is shown that the most familiar proposal for a dissolution of that paradox, viz, the one espoused by Crispin Wright, is unconvincing. Second, an alternative solution of the McKinsey paradox is outlined. It relies on the claim that the standard justification for externalism, namely the one based on Hilary Putnam's and Tyler Burge's Twin Earth thought experiment, is not entirely a priori because it incorporates an account of concept acquisition which cannot be known from the armchair.

Two major arguments have been advanced for the claim that there is a transmission failure in G.E. Moore’s famous proof of an external world. The first argument, due to Crispin Wright, is based on an epistemological doctrine now known as ‘conservatism’. Proponents of the second argument, like Nicholas Silins, invoke probabilistic considerations, most important among them Bayes’ theorem. The aim of this essay is to defend Moore’s proof against these two arguments. It is shown, first, that Wright’s argument founders because one of its premises, viz., conservatism, invites scepticism and must therefore be rejected. Then the probabilistic argument is challenged, not because its formal part is dubious, but rather on the grounds that it incorporates an unconvincing philosophical claim as an implicit premise. Finally, the two most promising objections to dogmatism—the negation of conservatism—are repudiated.

AbstractDavidson's principle of charity says that we should interpret someone's beliefs and utterances in such a way that these beliefs and utterances are, according to our own standards, mostly true. Davidson has advanced three major arguments for this principle. In the first part of this essay, I reconstruct these arguments and explain Davidson's project of a theory of interpretation as far as it is necessary for this reconstruction. In the second part of my article, it is shown that none of the three arguments for the principle of charity put forward by Davidson is convincing. I also examine the two most important arguments against Davidson's principle. It is demonstrated that these arguments are not compelling, too. The upshot of my discussion is that the debate between proponents and opponents of the principle of charity has reached stalemate.

Two major arguments have been advanced for the claim that there is a transmission failure in G. E. Moore's famous proof of an external world. The first argument, due to Crispin Wright, is based on an epistemological doctrine now known as ` conservatism'. Proponents of the second argument, like Nicholas Silins, invoke probabilistic considerations, most important among them Bayes' theorem. The aim of this essay is to defend Moore's proof against these two arguments. It is shown, first, that Wright's argument founders because one of its premises, viz., conservatism, invites scepticism and must therefore be rejected. Then the probabilistic argument is challenged, not because its formal part is dubious, but rather on the grounds that it incorporates an unconvincing philosophical claim as an implicit premise. Finally, the two most promising objections to dogmatism-the negation of conservatism-are repudiated.

Abstract. According to a widespread interpretation of Berkeley’s philosophy, advocated, for example, by Kant and Reid, Berkeley’s main claim in the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge is that there are no material, but only mental entities. In the following essay, it is argued that this reading of Berkeley’s idealism is mistaken. Berkeley does not hold ontological idealism, that is, the view that there is not a material world, to be true, but only counterfactual idealism, that is, the claim that material entities counterfactually depend upon mental substances for their existence. While defending this interpretation of Berkeley’s philosophy, I examine in some detail his theory of ideas and his account of corporeal substances. I conclude by discussing several objections to the reading of Berkeley’s idealism advanced in this essay.

Two major objections have been raised to Boghossian's discrimination argument for the incompatibility of externalism and a priori self- knowledge. Proponents of the first objection claim that thoughts about " twin water" are not relevant alternatives to thoughts about water. Advocates of the second objection, the socalled standard strategy, argue with recourse to Burge's account of self- knowledge that the ability to rule out relevant alternatives is not required for knowledge. In this essay, it is shown that the standard strategy does not provide us with a convincing response to the discrimination argument.