Do looks constitute our perceptual evidence?

Many philosophers take experience to be an essential aspect of perceptual justification. I argue against a specific variety of such an experientialist view, namely, the Looks View of perceptual justification, according to which our visual beliefs are mediately justified by beliefs about the way thin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Issues Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 132 - 148
Autor principal: Ghijsen, Harmen
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Oct2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=146497371&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 146497371
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15336077
        1731
      jtl: Philosophical Issues
      issn: 15336077
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2020
      vid: 30
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        146497371
        10.1111/phis.12176
      ppf: 132
      ppct: 16
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 442KB
      tig:
        atl: Do looks constitute our perceptual evidence?
      aug:
        au: Ghijsen, Harmen
        affil: Radboud University
      su:
        Evidence
        Philosophers
        Dogmatism
        Identification
        Pressure
        Evidentialism
        Epistemics
      sug:
        subj:
          Evidence
          Philosophers
          Dogmatism
          Identification
          Pressure
          Evidentialism
          Epistemics
      keyword:
        amodal completion
        dogmatism
        looks view
        multimodal identification
        perceptual evidence
        perceptual justification
        subpersonal processes
      ab: Many philosophers take experience to be an essential aspect of perceptual justification. I argue against a specific variety of such an experientialist view, namely, the Looks View of perceptual justification, according to which our visual beliefs are mediately justified by beliefs about the way things look. I describe three types of cases that put pressure on the idea that perceptual justification is always related to looks‐related reasons: unsophisticated cognizers, multimodal identification, and amodal completion. I then provide a tentative diagnosis of what goes wrong in the Looks View: it ascribes a specific epistemic role to beliefs about looks that is actually fulfilled by subpersonal perceptual processes.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophical Issues is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophical Issues
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2020
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N