شکاکیت از دیرباز از چالشبرانگیزترین مباحث معرفتشناسی بوده و یکی از راههای مقابله با آن نقض بستار است. درتسکی تحلیلی بازگشتی از معرفت ارایه میدهد که بستار را نقض کرده و به رفع شکاکیت میانجامد. البته رویکردهایی مانند بافتارگرایی، دگماتیسم یا نوموریگری معتقدند که میتوان بستار را حفظ کرد و همچنان شکاک نبود. هدف از این نوشتار بررسی رویکردهای حافظ بستار یا نقد تحلیل درتسکی به مثابه تحلیل معرفت یا اشاره به معایب نقض بستار نیست، بلکه هدف آن است که نشان دهم برخلاف آنچه درتسکی و دیگران تاکنون تصور کردهاند، تحلیل بازگشتی مذکور لزوماً ناقض بستار نیست، بلکه خوانشی از بند بازگشتی وجود دارد که حافظ بستار است و همچنان شکاکیت را مسدود میکند. بنابراین ابتدا تحلیل بازگشتی درتسکی را به منظور مقایسه با تعبیر پیشنهادی بررسی کرده و نشان میدهم که تفسیر پیشنهادی حافظ بستار است، ولی همچنان تهدید برخی از استدلالهای شکاکانه را برطرف میکند.
1. Audi, R., 1995, “Deductive Closure, Defeasibility and Scepticism: A Reply to Feldman.” Philosophical Quarterly, 45: 494–499.
2. Beebe, James R., 2004, “The Generality Problem, Statistical Relevance and the Tri-Level Hypothesis”, Noûs, 38(1): 177–195.
3. Bishop, Michael A., 2010, “Why the Generality Problem Is Everybody’s Problem”, Philosophical Studies, 151(2): 285–298.
4. BonJour, Laurence and Sosa, Ernest, 2003. Epistemic Justification: Internalism Vs. Externalism, Foundations Vs. Virtues, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
5. Cohen, Stewart, 1999, “Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.”, Philosophical Perspectives, 13 (Epistemology): 57-89.
6. Comesaña, Juan, 2006, “A Well-Founded Solution to the Generality Problem”, Philosophical Studies, 129(1): 27–47.
7. Conee, Earl and Richard Feldman, 1998, “The Generality Problem for Reliabilism”, Philosophical Studies, 89(1): 1–29.
8. DeRose, K., 1995, “Solving the Skeptical Problem,” Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.
9. Dretske, F., 1969, Seeing and Knowing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. –––, 1970, “Epistemic Operators,” Journal of Philosophy, 67: 1007–1023.
11. –––, 1971, “Conclusive Reasons,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49: 1–22.
12. –––, 1972, “Contrastive Statements,” Philosophical Review, 81: 411–430.
13. –––, 2003, “Skepticism: What Perception Teaches,” in Luper 2003b, pp. 105–118.
14. –––, 2005, “Is Knowledge Closed Under Known Entailment?” in Steup 2005.
15. Feldman, R., 1995, “In Defense of Closure,” Philosophical Quarterly, 45: 487–494.
16. –––, 2006, "BonJour and Sosa on Internalism, Externalism, and Basic Beliefs," Philosophical Studies, 131: 713-728.
17. Fine, Kit, 1975, “Review of Lewis’ Counterfactuals”, Mind, 84: 451–458.
18. Fumerton, R., 1995, Metaepistemology, and Skepticism, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
19. Gettier, E. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. Analysis, 23. 121-3
20. Green, M. & Williams, J.N. 2007. Moore’s Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Goldman, Alvin, 1979. “What is Justified Belief,” in G. Pappas (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
22. –––, 2009. “Internalism, Externalism, and the Architecture of Justification,” Journal of Philosophy, 106(6): 309-338. Reprinted in Goldman, 2012. Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
23. Hales, S., 1995, Epistemic Closure Principles, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33: 185–201.
24. Hawthorne, J., 2005, “The Case for Closure,” in Steup 2005.
25. –––, 2005, “Chance and Counterfactuals”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2): 396–405.
26. Jackson, Frank, 1987, Conditionals, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
27. Klein, P., 1981, Certainty: A Refutation of Skepticism, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
28. –––, 2004, “Closure Matters: Academic Skepticism and Easy Knowledge,” Philosophical Issues, 14(1): 165–184.
29. Lewis, D., 1973, Counterfactuals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Moore, G. E., 1959, “Proof of an External World,” and “Certainty,” in Philosophical Papers, London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds.), 2005, Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
31. Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted in: Sosa, E & Kim, J. & Fantal, J. & McGrath, M. (eds). 2000. Epistemology an Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. 255-79.
32. Pritchard, D., 2007, “How to be a neo-Moorean”, in Sanford C. Goldberg (ed.), Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology, Oxford University Press. pp. 68-99.
33. Pryor, J., 2000, “The Skeptic and the Dogmatist”, Noûs, 34(4): 517–549.
34. Sanford, David H., 1989, If P Then Q: Conditionals and the Foundations of Reasoning, London: Routledge.
35. Sider, Theodore, 2010, Logic for Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Sosa, E. & BonJour, L. 2003. Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell
37. Stalnaker, Robert C., 1968, “A Theory of Conditionals”, in Studies in Logical Theory, Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 98–112.
38. Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds.), 2005, Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
39. Stine, G.C., 1976, “Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure,” Philosophical Studies, 29: 249–261.
40. Vahid, H. 2005. Epistemic Justification and the Skeptical Challenge. Palgrave Macmillian.
41. Williamson, T., 2000, Knowledge and Its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. زمانی، محسن. 1400. آشنایی با معرفتشناسی. تهران: هرمس.
Audi R (1995). Deductive closure, defeasibility, and skepticism: A reply to Feldman. Philosophical Quarterly. 45:494-499. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2220313]
Beebe JR (2004). The generality problem, statistical relevance, and the tri-level hypothesis. Noûs. 38(1):177-195. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2004.00467.x]
Bishop MA (2010). Why the generality problem is everybody's problem?. Philosophical Studies. 151(2):285-298. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-009-9445-z]
BonjouR L, Sosa E (2003). Epistemic justification: Internalism VS. externalism, foundations VS. virtues. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0195130057.003.0008]
Cohen S (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives. 13:57-89. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/0029-4624.33.s13.3]
Comesaña J (2006). A well-founded solution to the generality problem. Philosophical Studies. 129(1):27-47. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-005-3020-z]
Conee E, Richard F (1998). The generality problem for reliabilism. Philosophical Studies. 89(1):1-29. [Link] [DOI:10.1023/A:1004243308503]
DeRose K (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. Philosophical Review. 104:1-52. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2186011]
Dretske F (1969). Seeing and knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Link]
Dretske F (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy. 67:1007-1023. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2024710]
Dretske F (1972). Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review. 81:411-437. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2183886]
Dretske F (2003). Skepticism: What perception teaches. In: The Skeptics; Contemporary Essays. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. pp. 105-118. [Link]
Dretske F (2005). Is knowledge closed under known entailment? The case against closure. In: Steup M, Sosa E editors. Contemporary debates in epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 13-26. [Link]
Feldman R (1995). In defense of closure. Philosophical Quarterly. 45(181):487-494. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2220312]
Feldman R (2006). Review: Bonjour and Sosa on internalism, externalism, and basic beliefs. Philosophical Studies. 131:713-728. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-005-2113-z]
Fumerton R (1995). Metaepistemology, and skepticism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. [Link] [DOI:10.5771/9781461639275]
Goldman A (2009). Internalism, externalism, and the architecture of justification. Journal of Philosophy. 106(6):309-338. [Link] [DOI:10.5840/jphil2009106611]
Sosa E, Bonjour L (2003). Epistemic justification: Internalism VS. externalism, foundations VS. virtues. Oxford: Blackwell. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0195130057.003.0008]
اندیشه فلسفی