works
Daniel Z. Korman Debunking arguments article Debunking arguments—also known as etiological arguments, genealogical arguments, access problems, isolation objections, and reliability challenges—arise in philosophical debates about a diverse range of topics, including causation, chance, color, consciousness, epistemic reasons, free will, grounding, laws of nature, logic, mathematics, modality, morality, natural kinds, ordinary objects, religion, and time. What unifies the arguments is the transition from a premise about what does or doesn’t explain why we have certain mental states to a negative assessment of their epistemic status. I examine the common, underlying structure of the arguments and the different strategies for motivating and resisting the premises of debunking arguments.

Debunking arguments

Daniel Z. Korman

Philosophy compass, vol. 14, no. 12, 2019, pp. 1–17

Abstract

Debunking arguments—also known as etiological arguments, genealogical arguments, access problems, isolation objections, and reliability challenges—arise in philosophical debates about a diverse range of topics, including causation, chance, color, consciousness, epistemic reasons, free will, grounding, laws of nature, logic, mathematics, modality, morality, natural kinds, ordinary objects, religion, and time. What unifies the arguments is the transition from a premise about what does or doesn’t explain why we have certain mental states to a negative assessment of their epistemic status. I examine the common, underlying structure of the arguments and the different strategies for motivating and resisting the premises of debunking arguments.

PDF

First page of PDF