<!DOCTYPE html><HTML lang="en"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Plantinga (Alvin) - Warrant: The Current Debate (Theo Todman's Book Collection - Paper Abstracts) </title> <link href="../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <BODY> <CENTER> <div id="header"><HR><h1>Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts</h1><HR></div><A name="Top"></A> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_10/PaperSummary_10643.htm">Warrant: The Current Debate</A></th></tr> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../Authors/P/Author_Plantinga (Alvin).htm">Plantinga (Alvin)</a></th></tr> <tr><th>Source: Plantinga - Warrant: The Current Debate</th></tr> <tr><th>Paper - Abstract</th></tr> </TABLE> </CENTER> <P><CENTER><TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=600><tr><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_10/PaperSummary_10643.htm">Paper Summary</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_10/PapersToNotes_10643.htm">Notes Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF="#ColourConventions">Text Colour-Conventions</a></td></tr></TABLE></CENTER></P> <hr><P><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><U>Preface</U> (Full Text, with omissions as indicated)<FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li>The theory of knowledge is currently flourishing, perhaps as never before. There are some, of course, who loudly proclaim the death of epistemology. This seems to me less premature than confused: what they observe is the breakdown of <I>classical foundationalism</I>, which is only one epistemological program among several, even if a historically important one. Confounding species with genus, they shrilly announce the demise of the latter. It is as if someone, noting the demise of Eastern European communism, should proclaim the death of political systems and government generally.</li><li>There is some excuse for this confusion. Classical foundationalism has been dominant in Western epistemology ever since the Enlightenment; more broadly and more exactly, it is really classical <I>deontologism</I>  the view that epistemic responsibility and fulfillment of epistemic obligation and duty are of crucial epistemic importance  together with its consequent internalism that has been thus dominant. Although classical foundationalism has fallen into ruins in the last half of the present century, the same most emphatically cannot be said for classical deontologism and internalism.</li><li>Nevertheless, one of the most exciting developments in twentieth-century theory of knowledge is the rejection of deontology and the sudden appearance of various forms of externalism. More precisely, this development is less the appearance than the <I>reappearance</I> of externalism in epistemology. Externalism goes a long way back, to Thomas Reid, to Thomas Aquinas  back, in fact, all the way to Aristotle. Indeed, we may venture to say that (apart, perhaps, from Augustine and some of the skeptics of the later Platonic Academy) internalists in epistemology are <I>rarae aves</I> in Western thought prior to Descartes. It is really externalism, in one form or another, that has been the dominant tradition; internalism is a recent interloper. We may therefore see present-day externalists as calling us back to our first epistemological love, after a brief and ill-starred fling with the seductive siren of internalism. In this book and its sequels, I hope to heed that call.</li><li>My topic, therefore, is the theory of knowledge. In the theory of knowledge, naturally enough, we try to come to some understanding of knowledge. But where and how shall we start? First, there is nearly universal agreement that knowledge requires truth; a person knows that all men are mortal only if it is true that all men are mortal. Of course we sometimes use the term  knows' as if it were in ironic quotes, as when we say that a good Marxist knows that the idea of objective truth is no more than a piece of bourgeois sentimentality. Sociologists of knowledge sometimes seem to take this ironic use of the term as its basic use, so that  S knows P', as they use it, means little more than that S believes P, or is strongly convinced of P, or perhaps is committed to P, or is such that the scientists of his culture circle announce P. But let us set such aberrant notions aside, for the moment, and agree that knowledge requires truth. Second, it is widely (though not universally) agreed that knowledge, whatever precisely it is, also involves belief; a person knows that all men are mortal only if, among other things, she <I>believes</I> that all men are mortal (where here the term  believes' is to be taken in the classical sense of  thinking with assent'; it does not imply lack of certainty or <I>mere</I> belief).</li><li>There is wide agreement that knowledge requires true belief; but as far back as Plato's <I>Theaetetus</I>, there is also recognition that it requires more. I may believe that I will win a Nobel Prize next year; by some mad chance my belief may be true; it hardly follows that I know the truth in question. What more is required? What is this elusive further quality or quantity which, or enough of which, stands between knowledge and mere true belief? What is it that, added to true belief, yields knowledge; what is it that <I>epistemizes</I> true belief? (We cannot properly assume that it is a <I>simple</I> property or quantity; perhaps it is more like a vector resultant of other properties or quantities.) This quality or quantity, however, whatever exactly it may turn out to be, is the subject of this book and the sequels, <I>Warrant and Proper Function</I> and <I>Warranted Christian Belief</I>. Contemporary epistemologists seldom focus attention on the nature of this element (although they often ask under what conditions a given belief has it); and when they do, they display deplorable diversity. Some claim that what turns true belief into knowledge is a matter of epistemic dutifulness, others that it goes by coherence, and still others that it is conferred by reliability. I shall argue that none of these claims is correct, and (in <I>Warrant and Proper Function</I>) suggest a more satisfactory alternative.</li><li>Epistemology is extremely difficult, in many ways more difficult than, say, the metaphysics of <a name="1"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_1/Notes_121.htm">modality</A><SUP>1</SUP>. The latter requires a fair amount of logical acumen; but it is reasonably easy to see what the basic concepts are and how they are related. Not so for epistemology. <I>Warrant, justification, evidence, epistemic normativity, probability, rationality</I>  these are all extremely difficult notions. Indeed, each of those terms is really associated with a whole class of difficult and analogically related notions, where a big part of the difficulty is discerning how the members of each class are related to each other and to the members of the other classes. Coming to clarity on them and their relatives and discerning the relations among them is strenuous and demanding; yet it is the only way to progress in epistemology. What is needed is hermeneutics, understanding, interpretation. Here the way to progress is not to turn directly to the issue itself, proceeding in lofty abstraction from what others have said and thought on the matter. There is an impressive tradition on these topics, going back to the beginnings of modern philosophy and indeed to the beginnings of philosophy itself. Furthermore, epistemology is at present in lively ferment; there are many penetrating and imaginative contemporary contributions to this and neighboring issues; it would be at best churlish to ignore them. Still further, it is unsatisfactory to consider only, say, coherentism <I>uberhaupt</I>; for while we may thus come to understand coherentism taken neat (the Platonic Form of coherentism, we might say), any flesh-and-blood coherentist will have her own additions and subtractions, her own modifications, which may result in a position stronger (or weaker) than coherentism as such, and in any case may make a real contribution to our understanding of the issues. My ultimate aim is to come to a satisfying and accurate account of warrant; but to do so we must first pay close attention to what our contemporaries suggest (concurring where possible, opposing where necessary).</li><li>I begin with <I>internalism</I>, the tradition dominant since the Enlightenment. First, there is the carefully crafted foundationalist internalism of Roderick Chisholm (chapters 2 and 3). To understand Chisholm and other internalists properly, however, we shall have to make a preliminary excursus (chapter 1) into the classical internalism of Descartes, Locke, and others; here we note the roots of internalism in <I>epistemic deontology</I>, the view that epistemic duty and obligation are of crucial epistemic importance. After Chisholmian internalism I turn to coherentism. For classificatory purposes, I take it as a form of internalism; and in the next three chapters I consider coherentism <I>uberhaupt</I> (chapter 4), the coherentist views of Laurence Bonjour (chapter 5) and contemporary Bayesian versions of coherentism (chapters 6 and 7). Third (chapter 8) there is the more attenuated internalism of John Pollock; I see Pollock's view as in transition from internalism to externalism.</li><li>After arguing that internalism, classical or otherwise, holds no real promise for a correct account of warrant, I turn to externalism. Given the recent history of epistemology, externalism seems new, innovative, perhaps even radical; on a longer view, however, internalism is a departure from the main tradition in Western epistemology, which, as I noted, has been externalist. The dominant form of contemporary externalism is <I>reliabilism</I>; I consider (chapter 9) the reliabilist views of William Alston, Fred Dretske, and Alvin Goldman. Reliabilism has its charms; but it omits a crucial component of warrant (or so, at any rate, I shall argue): that of <I>proper function</I> or <I>absence of dysfunction</I>. The idea of our cognitive faculties' functioning properly in the production and sustenance of belief is absolutely crucial to our conception of warrant; this idea is intimately connected with the idea of a design plan, a sort of blueprint specifying how properly functioning organs, powers, and faculties work. The last chapter offers a preview of coming attractions: a brief and preliminary account of that elusive notion <I>warrant</I>, an account that seems at once subtler, more accurate, and more satisfying than any of the theories in the field.</li><li>In the second volume, <I>Warrant and Proper Function</I>, I shall outline this theory in more detail. The first two chapters will be a general development of the theory, involving in particular an examination of the notion of proper function and its colleagues: purpose, damage, design plan, malfunction, and the like. Then in the next eight chapters I shall explore general features of our cognitive design plan, explaining how my account of warrant applies in each of the main areas of our epistemic establishment: knowledge of myself, knowledge by way of memory, knowledge of other persons, knowledge by way of testimony, perception, <I>a priori</I> knowledge and belief, induction, and probability. Then comes a chapter on a more general or structural feature of our epistemic establishment: the question whether warrant has a foundationalist structure. Finally, in the last two chapters of <I>Warrant and Proper Function</I> I argue that naturalism in epistemology flourishes best within the context of supernaturalism in theology or metaphysics: the prospects for a naturalistic epistemology are intimately intertwined with a theistic view of the world. I therefore conclude that <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P10643_2">naturalistic</A></U><SUB>2</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P10643_2"></A> epistemology is indeed viable; it offers the best chance for success; but only if set in the context of a broadly theistic view of the nature of human beings.</li><li>It would be nice to have a name for this theory.  Proper Functionalism' comes to mind; it has the advantage of a certain pleasing ambiguity, as well as the advantage that a view whose name contains  Functionalism' gets (at present) an automatic leg up.  Proper Functionalism', however, does not come trippingly off the tongue and I am inclined to prefer  The Theory of Proper Function' a name suggested by William Hasker. Whatever we call it, the theory in question is, broadly speaking, an example of epistemology <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P10643_3"> naturalized</A></U><SUB>3</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P10643_3"></A>'. This account of warrant is in some ways similar to that of Thomas Reid; at any rate it is in the spirit of Reid's work (as perhaps also in the spirit of Aquinas and Aristotle). Of course, I am not entering the lists in order to provide a good or satisfactory interpretation or account of Reid's thought.</li><li>The projected (but so far <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P10643_4">unwritten</A></U><SUB>4</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P10643_4"></A>) third volume of this series, <I>Warranted Christian Belief</I>, will be an application of the theory developed in <I>Warrant and Proper Function</I> to Christian and theistic belief. Although these three volumes form a sort of series, they are designed to be self-contained and can be read separately. </FONT></li><li>[& snip; provenance, acknowledgements & ] <FONT COLOR = "800080"><BR>Notre Dame, Indiana, April 1992</li></ol></FONT><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_P10643_2"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P10643_2"><B>Footnote 2</B></A></U>: </FONT></B>TT Note</>: It would be interesting to see how this develops. It seems to me that Plantinga s epistemology is fundamentally theistic and supernatural, as he relies on the indwelling Holy Spirit (for Christians) to provide the warrant that Christianity is reasonable. <a name="On-Page_Link_P10643_3"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P10643_3"><B>Footnote 3</B></A></U>: </FONT></B>TT Note</>: For  Epistemology Naturalised , see <a name="4"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_00/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_406.htm">Kornblith (Hilary) - Naturalizing Epistemology</A>". Plantinga gets a mention on pp. 296-7 (in <a name="2"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_01/Abstract_1941.htm">Goldman (Alvin) - Epistemic Folkways and Scientific Epistemology</A>"), with a reference to <a name="3"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_17/Abstract_17138.htm">Plantinga (Alvin) - Positive Epistemic Status and Proper Function</A>". The first two volumes of Plantinga s trilogy appear in the booklist. <a name="On-Page_Link_P10643_4"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P10643_4"><B>Footnote 4</B></A></U>: It has now appeared as <a name="5"></a>"<A HREF = "../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_04/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_4310.htm">Plantinga (Alvin) - Warranted Christian Belief</A>". <BR><BR><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><HR></P><a name="ColourConventions"></a><p><b>Text Colour Conventions (see <A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1025.htm">disclaimer</a>)</b></p><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</li><LI><FONT COLOR = "800080">Mauve</FONT>: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); &copy; the author(s)</li></OL> <BR><HR><BR><CENTER> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <TR><TD WIDTH="30%">&copy; Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2018.</TD> <TD WIDTH="40%">Please address any comments on this page to <A HREF="mailto:theo@theotodman.com">theo@theotodman.com</A>.</TD> <TD WIDTH="30%">File output: <time datetime="2018-08-03T00:12" pubdate>03/08/2018 00:12:56</time> <br><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1010.htm">Website Maintenance Dashboard</A></TD></TR> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="#Top">Return to Top of this Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="40%"><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1140.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="../../index.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Home Page</A></TD> </TR></TABLE></CENTER><HR> </BODY> </HTML>