Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    Evidentialism doesn't seem to directly concern itself with reliability. What it means for evidence to "support believing" something seems to be left up to interpretation - if you define that in terms of reliability, then that may be pretty close to a subset of reliabilism.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented May 26 at 22:11
  • 4
    First bullet - yes on any reasonable conception of "evidence". Second bullet - no, the reliable process may well be cognitively inaccessible to the agent, so evidence would not be available. Under reliabilism, even the content of knowledge may well depend on external factors beyond the agent's reach. Generally, evidentialism/reliabilism in epistemology are closely affiliated with internalism/externalism in semantics. If "meanings just ain't in the head", as Putnam quipped, then the link between justification and evidence is broken.
    – Conifold
    Commented May 27 at 4:28
  • For some reason, I am reminded of a sermon I heard decades ago called, "Looking for a recognizable Christ."
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 8 at 22:36
  • @ScottRowe Would you mind fleshing that reason out?
    – user66156
    Commented Jun 8 at 22:50
  • Oh, gosh, it wouldn't qualify as Philosophy, even if I could recall the details well. I think it amounted to: pay attention to the people around you and their needs, rather than thinking about Jesus so much. I was once stopped cold when I heard a radio preacher say: "To Jesus, ministry was the person standing in front of Him at the time." I think that outweighs all the Law and all the Prophets.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 8 at 23:05