Research Group
in Analytic Philosophy

Abstract

In this paper I argue that five very appealing principles in epistemology are in conflict with each other. After presenting the principles and showing how the conflict arises, I argue for the rejection of the principle I call “Inductivism,” according to which one can be justified in believing a proposition p on the basis of evidence e even if e doesn’t entail p. Although I advocate abandoning Inductivism, I also argue that doing so doesn’t commit us to the idea that justification is indefeasible.