Open-minded people should endorse dogmatism because of its explanatory power. In more careful (but less catchy) words, the purpose of this paper is to provide a reason to accept dogmatism by showing how well it addresses four issues concerning non-inferential justification. In this context, dogmatism doesn’t pick out an attitude of stubborn adherence to some doctrine; rather, it is a view about non-inferential justification,1 the sort of justification a proposition has in any way except in virtue of the justification of another belief. Its basic idea is that certain experiences suffice for prima facie2 non-inferential justification.3 In this paper, we will focus on the following version: (Radical) Dogmatism: Necessarily, if it seems to S that P, then S thereby has prima facie (non-inferential) justification for P. ....
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chris Tucker (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: