Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of
knowledge. Also called theory of knowledge, it explores different types of knowledge, such as
propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by
acquaintance as a familiarity through experience. Epistemologists study the concepts of belief,
truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises,
they investigate sources of justification, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and
testimony.

The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says
that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience,
whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a
belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the
justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism
disagree about whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external
circumstances.

Separate branches of epistemology are dedicated to knowledge found in specific fields, like
scientific, mathematical, moral, and religious knowledge. Naturalized epistemology relies on
empirical methods and discoveries, whereas formal epistemology uses formal tools from logic.
Social epistemology investigates the communal aspect of knowledge and historical epistemology
examines its historical conditions. Epistemology is closely related to psychology, which describes
the beliefs people hold, while epistemology studies the norms governing the evaluation of beliefs.
It also intersects with fields such as decision theory, education, and anthropology.

Early reflections on the nature, sources, and scope of knowledge are found in ancient Greek,
Indian, and Chinese philosophy. The relation between reason and faith was a central topic in the
medieval period. The modern era was characterized by the contrasting perspectives of empiricism
and rationalism. Epistemologists in the 20th century examined the components, structure, and
value of knowledge while integrating insights from the natural sciences and linguistics.

Definition
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. Also called theory of knowledge,[a] it
examines what knowledge is and what types of knowledge there are. It further investigates the
sources of knowledge, like perception, inference, and testimony, to determine how knowledge is
created. Another topic is the extent and limits of knowledge, confronting questions about what
people can and cannot know.[2] Other central concepts include belief, truth, justification, evidence,
and reason.[3] Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy besides fields like ethics,
logic, and metaphysics.[4] The term is also used in a slightly different sense to refer not to the
branch of philosophy but to the positions of particular philosophers within that branch, as in
Plato's epistemology and Immanuel Kant's epistemology.[5]
As a normative field of inquiry, epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs. It
determines which beliefs or forms of belief acquisition fulfill the standards or epistemic goals of
knowledge and which ones fail, thereby providing an evaluation of beliefs. Descriptive fields of
inquiry, like psychology and cognitive sociology, are also interested in beliefs and related cognitive
processes. Unlike epistemology, they study the beliefs people have and how people acquire them
instead of examining the evaluative norms of these processes.[6][b] Epistemology is relevant to
many descriptive and normative disciplines, such as the other branches of philosophy and the
sciences, by exploring the principles of how they may arrive at knowledge.[9]

The word epistemology comes from the ancient Greek terms ἐπιστήμη (episteme, meaning
knowledge or understanding) and λόγος (logos, meaning study of or reason), literally, the study of
knowledge. The word was only coined in the 19th century to label this field and conceive it as a
distinct branch of philosophy.[10][c]

Central concepts
Epistemologists examine several foundational concepts to understand their essences and rely on
them to formulate theories. Various epistemological disagreements have their roots in disputes
about the nature and function of these concepts, like the controversies surrounding the definition
of knowledge and the role of justification in it.[15]

Knowledge
Knowledge is an awareness, familiarity, understanding, or skill. Its various forms all involve a
cognitive success through which a person establishes epistemic contact with reality.[16]
Epistemologists typically understand knowledge as an aspect of individuals, generally as a
cognitive mental state that helps them understand, interpret, and interact with the world. While
this core sense is of particular interest to epistemologists, the term also has other meanings. For
example, the epistemology of groups examines knowledge as a characteristic of a group of people
who share ideas.[17] The term can also refer to information stored in documents and
computers.[18]

Knowledge contrasts with ignorance, which is often simply defined as the absence of knowledge.
Knowledge is usually accompanied by ignorance since people rarely have complete knowledge of a
field, forcing them to rely on incomplete or uncertain information when making decisions.[19]
Even though many forms of ignorance can be mitigated through education and research, there are
certain limits to human understanding that are responsible for inevitable ignorance.[20] Some
limitations are inherent in the human cognitive faculties themselves, such as the inability to know
facts too complex for the human mind to conceive.[21] Others depend on external circumstances
when no access to the relevant information exists.[22]
Epistemologists disagree on how much people know, for example, whether fallible beliefs can
amount to knowledge or whether absolute certainty is required. The most stringent position is
taken by radical skeptics, who argue that there is no knowledge at all.[23]

Types

The distinction between

propositional knowledge and
knowledge by acquaintance
plays a central role in the
epistemology of Bertrand
Russell.[24]

Epistemologists distinguish between different types of knowledge.[25] Their primary interest is in

knowledge of facts, called propositional knowledge.[26] It is theoretical knowledge that can be
expressed in declarative sentences using a that-clause, like "Ravi knows that kangaroos hop". For
this reason, it is also called knowledge-that.[27][d] Epistemologists often understand it as a relation
between a knower and a known proposition, in the case above between the person Ravi and the
proposition "kangaroos hop".[28] It is use-independent since it is not tied to one specific purpose,
unlike practical knowledge. It is a mental representation that embodies concepts and ideas to
reflect reality.[29] Because of its theoretical nature, it is often held that only creatures with highly
developed minds, such as humans, possess propositional knowledge.[30]

Propositional knowledge contrasts with non-propositional knowledge in the form of knowledge-

how and knowledge by acquaintance.[31] Knowledge-how is a practical ability or skill, like knowing
how to read or how to prepare lasagna.[32] It is usually tied to a specific goal and not mastered in
the abstract without concrete practice.[33] To know something by acquaintance means to have an
immediate familiarity with or awareness of it, usually as a result of direct experiential contact.
Examples are familiarity with the city of Perth, knowing the taste of tsampa, and knowing Marta
Vieira da Silva personally.[34]

Another influential distinction in epistemology is between a posteriori and a priori knowledge.[35]

A posteriori knowledge is knowledge of empirical facts based on sensory experience, like seeing
that the sun is shining and smelling that a piece of meat has gone bad.[36] Knowledge belonging to
the empirical science and knowledge of everyday affairs belongs to a posteriori knowledge. A
priori knowledge is knowledge of non-empirical facts and does not depend on evidence from
sensory experience, like knowing that . It belongs to fields such as mathematics and
logic.[37] The contrast between a posteriori and a priori knowledge plays a central role in the
debate between empiricists and rationalists on whether all knowledge depends on sensory
experience.[38]

The analytic–synthetic
distinction has its roots in the
philosophy of Immanuel
Kant.[39]

A closely related contrast is between analytic and synthetic truths. A sentence is analytically true if
its truth depends only on the meaning of the words it uses. For instance, the sentence "all
bachelors are unmarried" is analytically true because the word "bachelor" already includes the
meaning "unmarried". A sentence is synthetically true if its truth depends on additional facts. For
example, the sentence "snow is white" is synthetically true because its truth depends on the color
of snow in addition to the meanings of the words snow and white. A priori knowledge is primarily
associated with analytic sentences while a posteriori knowledge is primarily associated with
synthetic sentences. However, it is controversial whether this is true for all cases. Some
philosophers, such as Willard Van Orman Quine, reject the distinction, saying that there are no
analytic truths.[40]

Analysis
The analysis of knowledge is the attempt to identify the essential components or conditions of all
and only propositional knowledge states. According to the so-called traditional analysis,[e]
knowledge has three components: it is a belief that is justified and true.[42] In the second half of
the 20th century, this view was put into doubt by a series of thought experiments that aimed to
show that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge.[43] In one of them, a person is
unaware of all the fake barns in their area. By coincidence, they stop in front of the only real barn
and form a justified true belief that it is a real barn.[44] Many epistemologists agree that this is not
knowledge because the justification is not directly relevant to the truth.[45] More specifically, this
and similar counterexamples involve some form of epistemic luck, that is, a cognitive success that
results from fortuitous circumstances rather than competence.[46]
 The so-called traditional analysis
says that knowledge is justified true
belief. Edmund Gettier tried to show
that some justified true beliefs do
not amount to knowledge.[47]

Following these thought experiments, philosophers proposed various alternative definitions of

knowledge by modifying or expanding the traditional analysis.[48] According to one view, the
known fact has to cause the belief in the right way.[49] Another theory states that the belief is the
product of a reliable belief formation process.[50] Further approaches require that the person
would not have the belief if it was false,[51] that the belief is not inferred from a falsehood,[52] that
the justification cannot be undermined,[53] or that the belief is infallible.[54] There is no consensus
on which of the proposed modifications and reconceptualizations is correct.[55] Some
philosophers, such as Timothy Williamson, reject the basic assumption underlying the analysis of
knowledge by arguing that propositional knowledge is a unique state that cannot be dissected into
simpler components.[56]

Value
The value of knowledge is the worth it holds by expanding understanding and guiding action.
Knowledge can have instrumental value by helping a person achieve their goals.[57] For example,
knowledge of a disease helps a doctor cure their patient.[58] The usefulness of a known fact
depends on the circumstances. Knowledge of some facts may have little to no uses, like
memorizing random phone numbers from an outdated phone book.[59] Being able to assess the
value of knowledge matters in choosing what information to acquire and transmit to others. It
affects decisions like which subjects to teach at school and how to allocate funds to research
projects.[60]

Of particular interest to epistemologists is the question of whether knowledge is more valuable

than a mere opinion that is true.[61] Knowledge and true opinion often have a similar usefulness
since both are accurate representations of reality. For example, if a person wants to go to Larissa, a
true opinion about how to get there may help them in the same way as knowledge does.[62]
Considering this problem, Plato proposed that knowledge is better because it is more stable.[63]
Another suggestion focuses on practical reasoning. It proposes that people put more trust in
knowledge than in mere true opinions when drawing conclusions and deciding what to do.[64] A
different response says that, unlike mere true opinion, knowledge has intrinsic value in addition to
instrumental value. This view asserts that knowledge is always valuable, while true opinion is only
valuable in circumstances where it is useful.[65]

Belief and truth

Beliefs are mental states about what is the case, like believing that snow is white or that God
exists.[66] In epistemology, they are often understood as subjective attitudes that affirm or deny a
proposition, which can be expressed in a declarative sentence. For instance, to believe that snow is
white is to affirm the proposition "snow is white". According to this view, beliefs are
representations of what the universe is like. They are kept in memory and can be retrieved when
actively thinking about reality or when deciding how to act.[67] A different view understands
beliefs as behavioral patterns or dispositions to act rather than as representational items stored in
the mind. According to this view, to believe that there is mineral water in the fridge is nothing
more than a group of dispositions related to mineral water and the fridge. Examples are the
dispositions to answer questions about the presence of mineral water affirmatively and to go to the
fridge when thirsty.[68] Some theorists deny the existence of beliefs, saying that this concept
borrowed from folk psychology is an oversimplification of much more complex psychological or
neurological processes.[69] Beliefs play a central role in various epistemological debates, which
cover their status as a component of propositional knowledge, the question of whether people have
control over and are responsible for their beliefs, and the issue of whether there are degrees of
beliefs, called credences.[70]

As propositional attitudes, beliefs are true or false depending on whether they affirm a true or a
false proposition.[71] According to the correspondence theory of truth, to be true means to stand in
the right relation to the world by accurately describing what it is like. This means that truth is
objective: a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact.[72] The coherence theory of truth says that a
belief is true if it belongs to a coherent system of beliefs. A result of this view is that truth is relative
since it depends on other beliefs.[73] Further theories of truth include pragmatist, semantic,
pluralist, and deflationary theories.[74] Truth plays a central role in epistemology as a goal of
cognitive processes and an attribute of propositional knowledge.[75]

Justification
In epistemology, justification is a property of beliefs that fulfill certain norms about what a person
should believe.[76] According to a common view, this means that the person has sufficient reasons
for holding this belief because they have information that supports it.[76] Another view states that
a belief is justified if it is formed by a reliable belief formation process, such as perception.[77] The
terms reasonable, warranted, and supported are closely related to the idea of justification and are
sometimes used as synonyms.[78] Justification is what distinguishes justified beliefs from
superstition and lucky guesses.[79] However, justification does not guarantee truth. For example, if
a person has strong but misleading evidence, they may form a justified belief that is false.[80]

Epistemologists often identify justification as one component of knowledge.[81] Usually, they are
not only interested in whether a person has a sufficient reason to hold a belief, known as
propositional justification, but also in whether the person holds the belief because or based on[f]
this reason, known as doxastic justification. For example, if a person has sufficient reason to
believe that a neighborhood is dangerous but forms this belief based on superstition then they
have propositional justification but lack doxastic justification.[83]

Sources
Sources of justification are ways or cognitive capacities through which people acquire justification.
Often-discussed sources include perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony, but
there is no universal agreement to what extent they all provide valid justification.[84] Perception
relies on sensory organs to gain empirical information. There are various forms of perception
corresponding to different physical stimuli, such as visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory, and
gustatory perception.[85] Perception is not merely the reception of sense impressions but an active
process that selects, organizes, and interprets sensory signals.[86] Introspection is a closely related
process focused not on external physical objects but on internal mental states. For example, seeing
a bus at a bus station belongs to perception while feeling tired belongs to introspection.[87]

Rationalists understand reason as a source of justification for non-empirical facts. It is often used
to explain how people can know about mathematical, logical, and conceptual truths. Reason is also
responsible for inferential knowledge, in which one or several beliefs are used as premises to
support another belief.[88] Memory depends on information provided by other sources, which it
retains and recalls, like remembering a phone number perceived earlier.[89] Justification by
testimony relies on information one person communicates to another person. This can happen by
talking to each other but can also occur in other forms, like a letter, a newspaper, and a blog.[90]

Other concepts
Rationality is closely related to justification and the terms rational belief and justified belief are
sometimes used as synonyms. However, rationality has a wider scope that encompasses both a
theoretical side, covering beliefs, and a practical side, covering decisions, intentions, and
actions.[91] There are different conceptions about what it means for something to be rational.
According to one view, a mental state is rational if it is based on or responsive to good reasons.
Another view emphasizes the role of coherence, stating that rationality requires that the different
mental states of a person are consistent and support each other.[92] A slightly different approach
holds that rationality is about achieving certain goals. Two goals of theoretical rationality are
accuracy and comprehensiveness, meaning that a person has as few false beliefs and as many true
beliefs as possible.[93]

Epistemic norms are criteria to assess the cognitive quality of beliefs, like their justification and
rationality. Epistemologists distinguish between deontic norms, which are prescriptions about
what people should believe or which beliefs are correct, and axiological norms, which identify the
goals and values of beliefs.[94] Epistemic norms are closely related to intellectual or epistemic
virtues, which are character traits like open-mindedness and conscientiousness. Epistemic virtues
help individuals form true beliefs and acquire knowledge. They contrast with epistemic vices and
act as foundational concepts of virtue epistemology.[95]

Evidence for a belief is information that favors or supports it. Epistemologists understand
evidence primarily in terms of mental states, for example, as sensory impressions or as other
propositions that a person knows. But in a wider sense, it can also include physical objects, like
bloodstains examined by forensic analysts or financial records studied by investigative
journalists.[96] Evidence is often understood in terms of probability: evidence for a belief makes it
more likely that the belief is true.[97] A defeater is evidence against a belief or evidence that
undermines another piece of evidence. For instance, witness testimony connecting a suspect to a
crime is evidence of their guilt while an alibi is a defeater.[98] Evidentialists analyze justification in
terms of evidence by saying that to be justified, a belief needs to rest on adequate evidence.[99]

The presence of evidence usually affects doubt and certainty, which are subjective attitudes toward
propositions that differ regarding their level of confidence. Doubt involves questioning the validity
or truth of a proposition. Certainty, by contrast, is a strong affirmative conviction, meaning that
the person is free of doubt that the proposition is true. In epistemology, doubt and certainty play
central roles in attempts to find a secure foundation of all knowledge and in skeptical projects
aiming to establish that no belief is immune to doubt.[100]

While propositional knowledge is the main topic in epistemology, some theorists focus on
understanding instead. Understanding is a more holistic notion that involves a wider grasp of a
subject. To understand something, a person requires awareness of how different things are
connected and why they are the way they are. For example, knowledge of isolated facts memorized
from a textbook does not amount to understanding. According to one view, understanding is a
special epistemic good that, unlike propositional knowledge, is always intrinsically valuable.[101]
Wisdom is similar in this regard and is sometimes considered the highest epistemic good. It
encompasses a reflective understanding with practical applications. It helps people grasp and
evaluate complex situations and lead a good life.[102]

Schools of thought

Skepticism, fallibilism, and relativism

Philosophical skepticism questions the human ability to arrive at knowledge. Some skeptics limit
their criticism to certain domains of knowledge. For example, religious skeptics say that it is
impossible to have certain knowledge about the existence of deities or other religious doctrines.
Similarly, moral skeptics challenge the existence of moral knowledge and metaphysical skeptics
say that humans cannot know ultimate reality.[103]

Global skepticism is the widest form of skepticism, asserting that there is no knowledge in any
domain.[104] In ancient philosophy, this view was accepted by academic skeptics while Pyrrhonian
skeptics recommended the suspension of belief to achieve a state of tranquility.[105] Overall, not
many epistemologists have explicitly defended global skepticism. The influence of this position
derives mainly from attempts by other philosophers to show that their theory overcomes the
challenge of skepticism. For example, René Descartes used methodological doubt to find facts that
cannot be doubted.[106]

One consideration in favor of global skepticism is the dream argument. It starts from the
observation that, while people are dreaming, they are usually unaware of this. This inability to
distinguish between dream and regular experience is used to argue that there is no certain
knowledge since a person can never be sure that they are not dreaming.[107][g] Some critics assert
that global skepticism is a self-refuting idea because denying the existence of knowledge is itself a
knowledge claim. Another objection says that the abstract reasoning leading to skepticism is not
convincing enough to overrule common sense.[109]

Fallibilism is another response to skepticism.[110] Fallibilists agree with skeptics that absolute
certainty is impossible. Most fallibilists disagree with skeptics about the existence of knowledge,
saying that there is knowledge since it does not require absolute certainty.[111] They emphasize the
need to keep an open and inquisitive mind since doubt can never be fully excluded, even for well-
established knowledge claims like thoroughly tested scientific theories.[112]
Epistemic relativism is a related view. It does not question the existence of knowledge in general
but rejects the idea that there are universal epistemic standards or absolute principles that apply
equally to everyone. This means that what a person knows depends on the subjective criteria or
social conventions used to assess epistemic status.[113]

Empiricism and rationalism

John Locke and David Hume shaped the philosophy of empiricism.[114]

The debate between empiricism and rationalism centers on the origins of human knowledge.
Empiricism emphasizes that sense experience is the primary source of all knowledge. Some
empiricists express this view by describing the mind as a blank slate that only develops ideas about
the external world through the sense data it receives from the sensory organs. According to them,
the mind can arrive at various additional insights by comparing impressions, combining them,
generalizing to arrive at more abstract ideas, and deducing new conclusions from them.
Empiricists say that all these mental operations depend on material from the senses and do not
function on their own.[115]

Even though rationalists usually accept sense experience as one source of knowledge,[h] they also
say that important forms of knowledge are directly possessed by reason without sense
experience,[117] like knowledge of mathematical and logical truths.[118] According to some
rationalists, the mind possesses inborn ideas, which it can access without the help of the senses.
Others hold that there is an additional cognitive faculty, sometimes called rational intuition,
through which people acquire nonempirical knowledge.[119] Some rationalists limit their
discussion to the origin of concepts, saying that the mind relies on inborn categories to understand
the world and organize experience.[117]

Foundationalism and coherentism

Diagram of foundationalism, coherentism, and

infinitism with arrows symbolizing support between
beliefs. According to foundationalism, some basic
beliefs are justified without support from other beliefs.
According to coherentism, justification requires that
beliefs mutually support each other. According to
infinitism, justification requires that beliefs form infinite
support chains.[120]

Foundationalists and coherentists disagree about the structure of knowledge.[121][i]

Foundationalism distinguishes between basic and non-basic beliefs. A belief is basic if it is justified
directly, meaning that its validity does not depend on the support of other beliefs.[j] A belief is
non-basic if it is justified by another belief.[124] For example, the belief that it rained last night is a
non-basic belief if it is inferred from the observation that the street is wet.[125] According to
foundationalism, basic beliefs are the foundation on which all other knowledge is built while non-
basic beliefs act as the superstructure resting on this foundation.[124]

Coherentists reject the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs, saying that the justification
of any belief depends on other beliefs. They assert that a belief must be in tune with other beliefs to
amount to knowledge. This is the case if the beliefs are consistent and support each other.
According to coherentism, justification is a holistic aspect determined by the whole system of
beliefs, which resembles an interconnected web.[126]

The view of foundherentism is an intermediary position combining elements of both

foundationalism and coherentism. It accepts the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs
while asserting that the justification of non-basic beliefs depends on coherence with other
beliefs.[127]
Infinitism presents another approach to the structure of knowledge. It agrees with coherentism
that there are no basic beliefs while rejecting the view that beliefs can support each other in a
circular manner. Instead, it argues that beliefs form infinite justification chains, in which each link
of the chain supports the belief following it and is supported by the belief preceding it.[128]

Internalism and externalism

Alvin Goldman was an influential

defender of externalism.[129]

The disagreement between internalism and externalism is about the sources of justification.[130][k]
Internalists say that justification depends only on factors within the individual. Examples of such
factors include perceptual experience, memories, and the possession of other beliefs. This view
emphasizes the importance of the cognitive perspective of the individual in the form of their
mental states. It is commonly associated with the idea that the relevant factors are accessible,
meaning that the individual can become aware of their reasons for holding a justified belief
through introspection and reflection.[132]

Externalism rejects this view, saying that at least some relevant factors are external to the
individual.[132] For instance, when considering the belief that a cup of coffee stands on the table,
externalists are not primarily interested in the subjective perceptual experience that led to this
belief. Instead, they focus on objective factors, like the quality of the person's eyesight, their ability
to differentiate coffee from other beverages, and the circumstances under which they observed the
cup.[133] A key motivation of many forms of externalism is that justification makes it more likely
that a belief is true. Based on this view, justification is external to the extent that some factors
contributing to this likelihood are not part of the believer's cognitive perspective.[132]

Evidentialism is an influential internalist view. It says that justification depends on the possession
of evidence.[134] In this context, evidence for a belief is any information in the individual's mind
that supports the belief. For example, the perceptual experience of rain is evidence for the belief
that it is raining. Evidentialists have suggested various other forms of evidence, including
memories, intuitions, and other beliefs.[135] According to evidentialism, a belief is justified if the
individual's evidence supports the belief and they hold the belief on the basis of this evidence.[136]
Reliabilism is an externalist theory asserting that a reliable connection between belief and truth is
required for justification.[137] Some reliabilists explain this in terms of reliable processes.
According to this view, a belief is justified if it is produced by a reliable belief-formation process,
like perception. A belief-formation process is reliable if most of the beliefs it causes are true. A
slightly different view focuses on beliefs rather than belief-formation processes, saying that a belief
is justified if it is a reliable indicator of the fact it presents. This means that the belief tracks the
fact: the person believes it because it is a fact but would not believe it otherwise.[138]

Virtue epistemology is another type of externalism and is sometimes understood as a form of

reliabilism. It says that a belief is justified if it manifests intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues are
capacities or traits that perform cognitive functions and help people form true beliefs. Suggested
examples include faculties like vision, memory, and introspection.[139]

Others
In the epistemology of perception, direct and indirect realists disagree about the connection
between the perceiver and the perceived object. Direct realists say that this connection is direct,
meaning that there is no difference between the object present in perceptual experience and the
physical object causing this experience. According to indirect realism, the connection is indirect
since there are mental entities, like ideas or sense data, that mediate between the perceiver and the
external world. The contrast between direct and indirect realism is important for explaining the
nature of illusions.[140]

Constructivism in epistemology is the theory that how people view the world is not a simple
reflection of external reality but an invention or a social construction. This view emphasizes the
creative role of interpretation while undermining objectivity since social constructions may differ
from society to society.[141]

According to contrastivism, knowledge is a comparative term, meaning that to know something

involves distinguishing it from relevant alternatives. For example, if a person spots a bird in the
garden, they may know that it is a sparrow rather than an eagle but they may not know that it is a
sparrow rather than an indistinguishable sparrow hologram.[142]

Epistemic conservatism is a view about belief revision. It gives preference to the beliefs a person
already has, asserting that a person should only change their beliefs if they have a good reason to.
One motivation for adopting epistemic conservatism is that the cognitive resources of humans are
limited, meaning that it is not feasible to constantly reexamine every belief.[143]

Pragmatist epistemology is a form of fallibilism that emphasizes the close relation between
knowing and acting. It sees the pursuit of knowledge as an ongoing process guided by common
sense and experience while always open to revision. It reinterprets some core epistemological
notions, for example, by conceptualizing beliefs as habits that shape actions rather then as
representations that mirror the world.[144]

Bayesian epistemology is a formal approach based on the idea that people have degrees of belief
representing how certain they are. It uses probability theory to define norms of rationality that
govern how certain people should be about their beliefs.[145]
Phenomenological epistemology emphasizes the importance of first-person experience. It
distinguishes between the natural and the phenomenological attitudes. The natural attitude
focuses on objects belonging to common sense and natural science. The phenomenological attitude
focuses on the experience of objects and aims to provide a presuppositionless description of how
objects appear to the observer.[146]

Particularism and generalism disagree about the right method of conducting epistemological
research. Particularists start their inquiry by looking at specific cases. For example, to find a
definition of knowledge, they rely on their intuitions about concrete instances of knowledge and
particular thought experiments. They use these observations as methodological constraints that
any theory of more general principles needs to follow. Generalists proceed in the opposite
direction. They give preference to general epistemic principles, saying that it is not possible to
accurately identify and describe specific cases without a grasp of these principles.[147] Other
methods in contemporary epistemology aim to extract philosophical insights from ordinary
language or look at the role of knowledge in making assertions and guiding actions.[148]

The work of Elizabeth S. Anderson

combines the perspectives of
feminist, social, and naturalized
epistemology.[149]

Postmodern epistemology criticizes the conditions of knowledge in advanced societies. This

concerns in particular the metanarrative of a constant progress of scientific knowledge leading to a
universal and foundational understanding of reality.[150] Feminist epistemology critiques the effect
of gender on knowledge. Among other topics, it explores how preconceptions about gender
influence who has access to knowledge, how knowledge is produced, and which types of knowledge
are valued in society.[151] Decolonial scholarship criticizes the global influence of Western
knowledge systems, often with the aim of decolonizing knowledge to undermine Western
hegemony.[152]

Various schools of epistemology are found in traditional Indian philosophy. Many of them focus
on the different sources of knowledge, called pramāṇa. Perception, inference, and testimony are
sources discussed by most schools. Other sources only considered by some schools are non-
perception, which leads to knowledge of absences, and presumption.[153] Buddhist epistemology
tends to focus on immediate experience, understood as the presentation of unique particulars
without the involvement of secondary cognitive processes, like thought and desire.[154] Nyāya
epistemology is a causal theory of knowledge, understanding sources of knowledge as reliable
processes that cause episodes of truthful awareness. It sees perception as the primary source of
knowledge and emphasizes its importance for successful action.[155] Mīmāṃsā epistemology
understands the holy scriptures known as the Vedas as a key source of knowledge while discussing
the problem of their right interpretation.[156] Jain epistemology states that reality is many-sided,
meaning that no single viewpoint can capture the entirety of truth.[157]

African epistemology is rooted in African ontology. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of reality

in the form of a continuum between knowing subject and known object. It understands knowledge
as a holistic phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational aspects and is
not limited to the physical domain.[158]

Branches
Some branches of epistemology focus on the problems of knowledge within specific academic
disciplines. The epistemology of science examines how scientific knowledge is generated and what
problems arise in the process of validating, justifying, and interpreting scientific claims. A key
issue concerns the problem of how individual observations can support universal scientific laws.
Further topics include the nature of scientific evidence and the aims of science.[159] The
epistemology of mathematics studies the origin of mathematical knowledge. In exploring how
mathematical theories are justified, it investigates the role of proofs and whether there are
empirical sources of mathematical knowledge.[160]

Epistemological problems are found in most areas of philosophy. The epistemology of logic
examines how people know that an argument is valid. For example, it explores how logicians
justify that modus ponens is a correct rule of inference or that all contradictions are false.[161]
Epistemologists of metaphysics investigate whether knowledge of the basic structure of reality is
possible and what sources this knowledge could have.[162] Knowledge of moral statements, like the
claim that lying is wrong, belongs to the epistemology of ethics. It studies the role of ethical
intuitions, coherence among moral beliefs, and the problem of moral disagreement.[163] The ethics
of belief is a closely related field covering the interrelation between epistemology and ethics. It
examines the norms governing belief formation and asks whether violating them is morally
wrong.[164]

Religious epistemology studies the role of knowledge and justification for religious doctrines and
practices. It evaluates the weight and reliability of evidence from religious experience and holy
scriptures while also asking whether the norms of reason should be applied to religious faith.[165]
Social epistemology focuses on the social dimension of knowledge. While traditional epistemology
is mainly interested in the knowledge possessed by individuals, social epistemology covers
knowledge acquisition, transmission, and evaluation within groups, with specific emphasis on how
people rely on each other when seeking knowledge.[166] Historical epistemology examines how the
understanding of knowledge and related concepts has changed over time. It asks whether the main
issues in epistemology are perennial and to what extent past epistemological theories are relevant
to contemporary debates. It is particularly concerned with scientific knowledge and practices
associated with it.[167] It contrasts with the history of epistemology, which presents, reconstructs,
and evaluates epistemological theories of philosophers in the past.[168][l]

Naturalized epistemology is closely associated with the natural sciences, relying on their methods
and theories to examine knowledge. Naturalistic epistemologists focus on empirical observation to
formulate their theories and are often critical of approaches to epistemology that proceed by a
priori reasoning.[170] Evolutionary epistemology is a naturalistic approach that understands
cognition as a product of evolution, examining knowledge and the cognitive faculties responsible
for it from the perspective of natural selection.[171] Epistemologists of language explore the nature
of linguistic knowledge. One of their topics is the role of tacit knowledge, for example, when native
speakers have mastered the rules of grammar but are unable to explicitly articulate those
rules.[172] Epistemologists of modality examine knowledge about what is possible and
necessary.[173] Epistemic problems that arise when two people have diverging opinions on a topic
are covered by the epistemology of disagreement.[174] Epistemologists of ignorance are interested
in epistemic faults and gaps in knowledge.[175]

There are distinct areas of epistemology dedicated to specific sources of knowledge. Examples are
the epistemology of perception,[176] the epistemology of memory,[177] and the epistemology of
testimony.[178]

Some branches of epistemology are characterized by their research method. Formal epistemology
employs formal tools found in logic and mathematics to investigate the nature of
knowledge.[179][m] Experimental epistemologists rely in their research on empirical evidence about
common knowledge practices.[181] Applied epistemology focuses on the practical application of
epistemological principles to diverse real-world problems, like the reliability of knowledge claims
on the internet, how to assess sexual assault allegations, and how racism may lead to epistemic
injustice.[182][n]

Metaepistemologists examine the nature, goals, and research methods of epistemology. As a

metatheory, it does not directly defend a position about which epistemological theories are correct
but examines their fundamental concepts and background assumptions.[184][o]

Related fields
Epistemology and psychology were not defined as distinct fields until the 19th century; earlier
investigations about knowledge often do not fit neatly into today's academic categories.[186] Both
contemporary disciplines study beliefs and the mental processes responsible for their formation
and change. One important contrast is that psychology describes what beliefs people have and how
they acquire them, thereby explaining why someone has a specific belief. The focus of
epistemology is on evaluating beliefs, leading to a judgment about whether a belief is justified and
rational in a particular case.[187] Epistemology has a similar intimate connection to cognitive
science, which understands mental events as processes that transform information.[188] Artificial
intelligence relies on the insights of epistemology and cognitive science to implement concrete
solutions to problems associated with knowledge representation and automatic reasoning.[189]

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. For epistemology, it is relevant to inferential knowledge,
which arises when a person reasons from one known fact to another.[190] This is the case, for
example, if a person does not know directly that but comes to infer it based on
their knowledge that , , and . [191] Whether an inferential belief
amounts to knowledge depends on the form of reasoning used, in particular, that the process does
not violate the laws of logic.[192] Another overlap between the two fields is found in the epistemic
approach to fallacies.[193] Fallacies are faulty arguments based on incorrect reasoning.[194] The
epistemic approach to fallacies explains why they are faulty, stating that arguments aim to expand
knowledge. According to this view, an argument is a fallacy if it fails to do so.[193] A further
intersection is found in epistemic logic, which uses formal logical devices to study epistemological
concepts like knowledge and belief.[195]

Both decision theory and epistemology are interested in the foundations of rational thought and
the role of beliefs. Unlike many approaches in epistemology, the main focus of decision theory lies
less in the theoretical and more in the practical side, exploring how beliefs are translated into
action.[196] Decision theorists examine the reasoning involved in decision-making and the
standards of good decisions.[197] They identify beliefs as a central aspect of decision-making. One
of their innovations is to distinguish between weaker and stronger beliefs. This helps them take the
effect of uncertainty on decisions into consideration.[198]

Epistemology and education have a shared interest in knowledge, with one difference being that
education focuses on the transmission of knowledge, exploring the roles of both learner and
teacher.[199] Learning theory examines how people acquire knowledge.[200] Behavioral learning
theories explain the process in terms of behavior changes, for example, by associating a certain
response with a particular stimulus.[201] Cognitive learning theories study how the cognitive
processes that affect knowledge acquisition transform information.[202] Pedagogy looks at the
transmission of knowledge from the teacher's side, exploring the teaching methods they may
employ.[203] In teacher-centered methods, the teacher takes the role of the main authority
delivering knowledge and guiding the learning process. In student-centered methods, the teacher
mainly supports and facilitates the learning process while the students take a more active role.[204]
The beliefs students have about knowledge, called personal epistemology, affect their intellectual
development and learning success.[205]

The anthropology of knowledge examines how knowledge is acquired, stored, retrieved, and
communicated. It studies the social and cultural circumstances that affect how knowledge is
reproduced and changes, covering the role of institutions like university departments and
scientific journals as well as face-to-face discussions and online communications. It understands
knowledge in a wide sense that encompasses various forms of understanding and culture,
including practical skills. Unlike epistemology, it is not interested in whether a belief is true or
justified but in how understanding is reproduced in society.[206] The sociology of knowledge is a
closely related field with a similar conception of knowledge. It explores how physical,
demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors impact knowledge. It examines in what
sociohistorical contexts knowledge emerges and the effects it has on people, for example, how
socioeconomic conditions are related to the dominant ideology in a society.[207]

History
Early reflections on the nature and sources of knowledge are found in ancient history. In ancient
Greek philosophy, Plato (427–347 BCE) studied what knowledge is, examining how it differs from
true opinion by being based on good reasons.[208] According to him, the process of learning
something is a form of recollection in which the soul remembers what it already knew
before.[209][p] Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was particularly interested in scientific knowledge,
exploring the role of sensory experience and how to make inferences from general principles.[210]
The Hellenistic schools, which began to arise in the 4th century BCE, included Epicureanism,
Stoicism, and skepticism. The Epicureans had an empiricist outlook, stating that sensations are
always accurate and act as the supreme standard of judgments.[211] The Stoics defended a similar
position but limited themselves to lucid and specific sensations, which they regarded as true.[212]
The skepticists questioned that knowledge is possible, recommending instead suspension of
judgment to arrive at a state of tranquility.[213] Emerging in the 3rd century CE,[214] Neoplatonism
distinguished knowledge from true belief, arguing that knowledge is infallible and limited to the
realm of immaterial forms.[215]

The Buddhist philosopher

Dharmakirti developed a causal
theory of knowledge.[216]

The Upanishads, philosophical scriptures composed in ancient India between 700 and 300 BCE,
examined how people acquire knowledge, including the role of introspection, comparison, and
deduction.[217] In the 6th century BCE, the school of Ajñana developed a radical skepticism
questioning the possibility and usefulness of knowledge.[218] The school of Nyaya emerged in the
2nd century BCE and provided a systematic treatment of how people acquire knowledge,
distinguishing between valid and invalid sources.[219] When Buddhist philosophers later became
interested in epistemology, they relied on concepts developed in Nyaya and other traditions.[220]
Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti (6th or 7th century CE)[221] analyzed the process of knowing as
a series of causally related events.[216]

Ancient Chinese philosophers understood knowledge as an interconnected phenomenon

fundamentally linked to ethical behavior and social involvement. Many saw wisdom as the goal of
attaining knowledge.[222] Mozi (470–391 BCE) proposed a pragmatic approach to knowledge
using historical records, sensory evidence, and practical outcomes to validate beliefs.[223] Mencius
(c. 372–289 BCE) explored analogical reasoning as another source of knowledge.[224] Xunzi
(c. 310-220 BCE) aimed to combine empirical observation and rational inquiry. He emphasized
the importance of clarity and standards of reasoning without excluding the role of feeling and
emotion.[225]

The relation between reason and faith was a central topic in the medieval period.[226] In Arabic–
Persian philosophy, al-Farabi (c. 870–950) and Averroes (1126–1198) discussed how philosophy
and theology interact and which is the better vehicle to truth.[227] Al-Ghazali (c. 1056–1111)
criticized many of the core teachings of previous Islamic philosophers, saying that they rely on
unproven assumptions that do not amount to knowledge.[228] In Western philosophy, Anselm of
Canterbury (1033–1109) proposed that theological teaching and philosophical inquiry are in
harmony and complement each other.[229] Peter Abelard (1079–1142) argued against
unquestioned theological authorities and said that all things are open to rational doubt.[230]
Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) developed an empiricist theory, stating that
"nothing is in the intellect unless it first appeared in the senses".[231] According to an early form of
direct realism proposed by William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349), perception of mind-independent
objects happens directly without intermediaries.[232] Meanwhile, in 14th-century India, Gaṅgeśa
developed a reliabilist theory of knowledge and considered the problems of testimony and
fallacies.[233] In China, Wang Yangming (1472–1529) explored the unity of knowledge and action,
holding that moral knowledge is inborn and can be attained by overcoming self-interest.[234]

René Descartes used

methodological doubt to seek
certain foundations for
philosophy.[235]

The course of modern philosophy was shaped by René Descartes (1596–1650), who claimed that
philosophy must begin from a position of indubitable knowledge of first principles. Inspired by
skepticism, he aimed to find absolutely certain knowledge by encountering truths that cannot be
doubted. He thought that this is the case for the assertion "I think, therefore I am", from which he
constructed the rest of his philosophical system.[236] Descartes, together with Baruch Spinoza
(1632–1677) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), belonged to the school of rationalism,
which asserts that the mind possesses innate ideas independent of experience.[237] John Locke
(1632–1704) rejected this view in favor of an empiricism according to which the mind is a blank
slate. This means that all ideas depend on sense experience, either as "ideas of sense", which are
directly presented through the senses, or as "ideas of reflection", which the mind creates by
reflecting on ideas of sense.[238] David Hume (1711–1776) used this idea to explore the limits of
what people can know. He said that knowledge of facts is never certain, adding that knowledge of
relations between ideas, like mathematical truths, can be certain but contains no information
about the world.[239] Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) tried to find a middle position between
rationalism and empiricism by identifying a type of knowledge that Hume had missed. For Kant,
this is knowledge about principles that underlie all experience and structure it, such as spatial and
temporal relations and fundamental categories of understanding.[240]

In the 19th century, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) argued against empiricism,
saying that sensory impressions on their own cannot amount to knowledge since all knowledge is
actively structured by the knowing subject.[241] John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) defended a wide-
sweeping form of empiricism and explained knowledge of general truths through inductive
reasoning.[242] Charles Peirce (1839–1914) thought that all knowledge is fallible, emphasizing that
knowledge seekers should always be ready to revise their beliefs if new evidence is encountered.
He used this idea to argue against Cartesian foundationalism seeking absolutely certain
truths.[243]

In the 20th century, fallibilism was further explored by J. L. Austin (1911–1960) and Karl Popper
(1902–1994).[244] In continental philosophy, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) applied the skeptic
idea of suspending judgment to the study of experience. By not judging whether an experience is
accurate or not, he tried to describe the internal structure of experience instead.[245] Logical
positivists, like A. J. Ayer (1910–1989), said that all knowledge is either empirical or analytic.[246]
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) developed an empiricist sense-datum theory, distinguishing
between direct knowledge by acquaintance of sense data and indirect knowledge by description,
which is inferred from knowledge by acquaintance.[247] Common sense had a central place in G. E.
Moore's (1873–1958) epistemology. He used trivial observations, like the fact that he has two
hands, to argue against abstract philosophical theories that deviate from common sense.[248]
Ordinary language philosophy, as practiced by the late Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), is a
similar approach that tries to extract epistemological insights from how ordinary language is
used.[249]

Edmund Gettier (1927–2021) conceived counterexamples against the idea that knowledge is the
same as justified true belief. These counterexamples prompted many philosophers to suggest
alternative definitions of knowledge.[250] Developed by philosophers such as Alvin Goldman
(1938–2024), reliabilism emerged as one of the alternatives, asserting that knowledge requires
reliable sources and shifting the focus away from justification.[251] Virtue epistemology, a closely
related response, analyses belief formation in terms of the intellectual virtues or cognitive
competencies involved in the process.[252] Naturalized epistemology, as conceived by Willard Van
Orman Quine (1908–2000), employs concepts and ideas from the natural sciences to formulate its
theories.[253] Other developments in late 20th-century epistemology were the emergence of social,
feminist, and historical epistemology.[254]

See also

Philosophy portal

Epistemological pluralism – School of thought in epistemology

Knowledge falsification – Deliberate misrepresentation of knowledge
Logology (science) – The study of all aspects of science and its practitioners
Reformed epistemology – School of philosophical thought
Theory of Knowledge (IB Course) – Compulsory International Baccalaureate subject

References

Notes
a. Less commonly, the term "gnoseology" is also used as a synonym.[1]
b. Despite this contrast, epistemologists may rely on insights from the empirical sciences in
formulating their normative theories.[7] According to one interpretation, the aim of naturalized
epistemology is to answer descriptive questions, but this characterization is disputed.[8]
c. As a label for a branch of philosophy, the term "epistemology" was first employed in 1854 by
James E. Ferrier.[11] In a different context, the word was used as early as 1847 in New York's
Eclectic Magazine.[12] As the term had not been coined before the 19th century, earlier
philosophers did not explicitly label their theories as epistemology and often explored it in
combination with psychology.[13] According to philosopher Thomas Sturm, it is an open
question how relevant the epistemological problems addressed by past philosophers are to
contemporary philosophy.[14]
d. Other synonyms include declarative knowledge and descriptive knowledge.[28]
e. The accuracy of the label traditional analysis is debated since it suggests widespread
acceptance within the history of philosophy, an idea not shared by all scholars.[41]
f. The relation between a belief and the reason on which it rests is called basing relation.[82]
g. The brain in a vat is a similar thought experiment assuming that a person does not have a
body but is merely a brain receiving electrical stimuli indistinguishable from the stimuli a brain
in a body would receive. This argument also leads to the conclusion of global skepticism based
on the claim that it is not possible to distinguish stimuli representing the actual world from
simulated stimuli.[108]
h. Some forms of extreme rationalism, found in ancient Greek philosophy, see reason as the sole
source of knowledge.[116]
i. Both can be understood as responses to the regress problem.[122]
j. The theory of classical foundationalism has a stronger requirement by saying that basic beliefs
are self-evident or indubitable.[123]
k. The internalist-externalist debate in epistemology is different from the internalism-externalism
debate in philosophy of mind, which asks whether mental states depend only on the individual
or also on their environment.[131]
l. The precise characterization of the contrast is disputed.[169]
m. It is closely related to computational epistemology, which examines the interrelation between
knowledge and computational processes.[180]
n. Epistemic injustice happens when valid knowledge claims are dismissed or
misrepresented.[183]
o. Nonetheless, metaepistemological insights can have various indirect effects on disputes in
epistemology.[185]
p. To argue for this point, Plato used the example of a slave boy, who manages to answer a
series of geometry questions even though he never studied geometry.[209]

Citations
1. Merriam-Webster 2024
2. Truncellito, Lead section
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 49–50
Crumley II 2009, p. 16
Carter & Littlejohn 2021, Introduction: 1. What Is Epistemology?
Moser 2005, p. 3 ([Link]
3. Fumerton 2006, pp. 1–2
Moser 2005, p. 4 ([Link]
4. Brenner 1993, p. 16 ([Link]
Palmquist 2010, p. 800 ([Link]
00)
Jenicek 2018, p. 31 ([Link]
 5. Steup & Neta 2024, Lead section
Moss 2021, pp. 1–2 ([Link]
6. Crumley II 2009, p. 16
Carter & Littlejohn 2021, Introduction: 1. What Is Epistemology?
7. O′Donohue & Kitchener 1996, p. 2 ([Link]
PA2)
8. Crumley II 2009, p. 192
Mi 2007, pp. 113, 115 ([Link]
3)
9. Audi 2003, pp. 258–259
Wolenski 2004, pp. 3–4
Campbell 2024, Lead section
10. Steup & Neta 2024, Lead section
Scott 2002, p. 30 ([Link]
Wolenski 2004, p. 3
11. Wolenski 2004, p. 3
12. Oxford University Press 2024
13. Alston 2006, pp. 1–2
14. Sturm 2011, pp. 308–309
15. Goldman & McGrath 2015, pp. 3–6
Truncellito, § 2. The Nature of Propositional Knowledge
Stroll 2023, § Issues in epistemology
16. Zagzebski 1999, p. 109
Steup & Neta 2020, Lead section, § 1. The Varieties of Cognitive Success
HarperCollins 2022a
17. Klausen 2015, pp. 813–818 ([Link]
73-28f2-46d5-94b6-49ef5b18a38b)
Lackey 2021, pp. 111–112
18. HarperCollins 2022a
Magee & Popper 1971, pp. 74–75 ([Link]
e/page/74)
HarperCollins 2022b
Walton 2005, pp. 59, 64
19. Gross & McGoey 2015, pp. 1–4 ([Link]
&pg=PA1)
Haas & Vogt 2015, pp. 17–18 ([Link]
g=PA17)
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 79
20. Markie & Folescu 2023, § 1. Introduction
Rescher 2009, pp. 2, 6
Stoltz 2021, p. 120 ([Link]
21. Rescher 2009, pp. 10, 93
Rescher 2009a, pp. x–xi, 57–58
Dika 2023, p. 163
22. Rescher 2009, pp. 2, 6
Rescher 2009a, pp. 140–141
23. Wilson 2008, p. 314 ([Link]
Pritchard 2005, p. 18 ([Link]
Hetherington, "Fallibilism", Lead section, § 8. Implications of Fallibilism: No
Knowledge?
24. Brown 2016, p. 104 ([Link]
25. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1. Kinds of Knowledge
Barnett 1990, p. 40 ([Link]
Lilley, Lightfoot & Amaral 2004, pp. 162–163 ([Link]
DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA162)
26. Klein 1998, § 1. The Varieties of Knowledge
Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1b. Knowledge-That
Stroll 2023, § The Nature of Knowledge
27. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1b. Knowledge-That
Stroll 2023, § The Nature of Knowledge
Zagzebski 1999, p. 92
28. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1b. Knowledge-That
29. Morrison 2005, p. 371 ([Link]
1)
Reif 2008, p. 33
Zagzebski 1999, p. 93
30. Pritchard 2013, p. 4 ([Link]
31. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1. Kinds of Knowledge
Stroll 2023, § The Nature of Knowledge
Stanley & Willlamson 2001, pp. 411–412 ([Link]
32. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1d. Knowing-How
Pritchard 2013, p. 3 ([Link]
33. Merriënboer 1997, p. 32 ([Link]
Klauer et al. 2016, pp. 105–6 ([Link]
=PA105)
Pavese 2022, Lead section ([Link]
34. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance
Stroll 2023, § St. Anselm of Canterbury
Zagzebski 1999, p. 92
Benton 2024, p. 4
35. Stroll 2023, § A Priori and a Posteriori Knowledge
Baehr, "A Priori and A Posteriori", Lead section
Russell 2020, Lead section
36. Baehr, "A Priori and A Posteriori", Lead section
Moser 2016, Lead section
37. Russell 2020, Lead section
Baehr, "A Priori and A Posteriori", Lead section, § 1. An Initial Characterization
Moser 2016, Lead section
38. Carter & Littlejohn 2021, § 3. The Apriori ([Link]
AAQBAJ&pg=PA79)
Popper 2014, 2. Deductivism and Inductivism ([Link]
9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31)
39. Juhl & Loomis 2009, p. 4 ([Link]
40. Juhl & Loomis 2009, pp. ix–x, 1–2 ([Link]
&pg=PR9)
Russell 2023
41. Crumley II 2009, pp. 54–55
Ayers 2019, p. 4 ([Link]
42. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, Lead section
Crumley II 2009, pp. 53–54
43. Crumley II 2009, pp. 61–62
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 3. The Gettier Problem
44. Rodríguez 2018, pp. 29–32
Goldman 1976, pp. 771–773
Sudduth, § 2b. Defeasibility Analyses and Propositional Defeaters
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 10.2 Fake Barn Cases
45. Crumley II 2009, pp. 61–62
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 8. Epistemic Luck
46. Pritchard 2005, pp. 1–4 ([Link]
1)
Broncano-Berrocal & Carter 2017, Lead section
47. Crumley II 2009, p. 65
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, Lead section, § 3. The Gettier Problem
48. Crumley II 2009, p. 65
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, Lead section, § 3. The Gettier Problem
49. Crumley II 2009, pp. 67–68
50. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 6.1 Reliabilist Theories of Knowledge
51. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 5.1 Sensitivity
52. Crumley II 2009, p. 75
Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 4. No False Lemmas
53. Crumley II 2009, p. 69
54. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 5c. Questioning the Gettier Problem, § 6. Standards for
Knowing
Kraft 2012, pp. 49–50
55. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 3. The Gettier Problem, § 7. Is Knowledge Analyzable?
Zagzebski 1999, pp. 93–94, 104–105
Steup & Neta 2020, § 2.3 Knowing Facts
56. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 7. Is Knowledge Analyzable?
57. Degenhardt 2019, pp. 1–6 ([Link]
PA1)
Pritchard 2013, pp. 10–11 ([Link]
A10)
Olsson 2011, pp. 874–875
58. McCormick 2014, p. 42 ([Link]
59. Pritchard 2013, pp. 11–12 ([Link]
60. Stehr & Adolf 2016, pp. 483–485
Powell 2020, pp. 132–133 ([Link]
PA132)
Meirmans et al. 2019, pp. 754–756
Degenhardt 2019, pp. 1–6 ([Link]
PA1)
61. Pritchard, Turri & Carter 2022, § 1. Value Problems
Olsson 2011, pp. 874–875
Greco 2021, § The Value of Knowledge
62. Olsson 2011, pp. 874–875
Pritchard, Turri & Carter 2022, § 1. Value Problems
Plato 2002, pp. 89–90, 97b–98a ([Link]
e/89)
63. Olsson 2011, p. 875
Greco 2021, § The Value of Knowledge
64. Pritchard, Turri & Carter 2022, § 6. Other Accounts of the Value of Knowledge
65. Pritchard 2013, pp. 15–16 ([Link]
A15)
Greco 2021, § The Value of Knowledge
66. Braddon-Mitchell & Jackson 2011, Lead section
Bunnin & Yu 2008, pp. 80–81
Dretske 2005, p. 85
Crumley II 2009, p. 18
67. Braddon-Mitchell & Jackson 2011, Lead section
Schwitzgebel 2024, Lead section, § 1.1 Representationalism
Schwitzgebel 2011, pp. 14–15
68. Schwitzgebel 2024, § 1.2 Dispositionalism
Schwitzgebel 2011, pp. 17–18
69. Schwitzgebel 2024, § 1.5 Eliminativism, Instrumentalism, and Fictionalism
Schwitzgebel 2011, p. 20
70. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 14–15
Schwitzgebel 2024, § 2.3 Degree of Belief, § 2.5 Belief and Knowledge
71. Dretske 2005, p. 85
Lowe 2005, p. 926
Crumley II 2009, p. 18
72. Lowe 2005, p. 926
Dowden & Swartz, § 3. Correspondence Theory
Lynch 2011, pp. 3–5
Crumley II 2009, p. 58
73. Glanzberg 2023, § 1.2 The Coherence Theory
Lowe 2005, pp. 926–927
Lynch 2011, p. 3
Crumley II 2009, p. 58
74. Lynch 2011, pp. 5–7, 10
Glanzberg 2023, § 1. The Neo-classical Theories of Truth, § 2. Tarski’s Theory of Truth,
§ 4.4 Truth Pluralism, § 5. Deflationism
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 148–149
75. Lynch 2011, p. 5
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 148
76. Goldman & Bender 2005, p. 465
Kvanvig 2011, pp. 25–26
77. Crumley II 2009, pp. 83–84
Olsson 2016
78. Kvanvig 2011, p. 25
Foley 1998, Lead section
79. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 1.3 The Justification Condition
80. Crumley II 2009, p. 149
Comesaña & Comesaña 2022, p. 44 ([Link]
BAJ&pg=PT44)
81. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 92–93
82. Silva & Oliveira 2022, pp. 1–4 ([Link]
0)
83. Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 1.3.2 Kinds of Justification
Silva & Oliveira 2022, pp. 1–4 ([Link]
g=PT10)
84. Kern 2017, pp. 8–10, 133 ([Link]
A8)
Smith 2023, p. 3
Steup & Neta 2024, § 5. Sources of Knowledge and Justification
Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 3. Ways of Knowing
85. Steup & Neta 2024, § 5.1 Perception
Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 3. Ways of Knowing
86. Khatoon 2012, p. 104 ([Link]
04)
Martin 1998, Lead section
87. Steup & Neta 2024, § 5.2 Introspection
88. Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 3d. Knowing by Thinking-Plus-Observing
Steup & Neta 2024, § 5.4 Reason
Audi 2002, pp. 85, 90–91
Audi 2006, p. 38 ([Link]
89. Steup & Neta 2024, § 5.3 Memory
Audi 2002, pp. 72–75
Gardiner 2001, pp. 1351–1352
Michaelian & Sutton 2017
90. Steup & Neta 2024, § 5.5 Testimony
Leonard 2021, Lead section, § 1. Reductionism and Non-Reductionism
Green 2022, Lead section
 91. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 123–124
Foley 2011, pp. 37, 39–40
Harman 2013, § Theoretical and Practical Rationality
Mele & Rawling 2004, pp. 3–4
92. Heinzelmann 2023, pp. 312–314
Kiesewetter 2020, pp. 332–334
93. Foley 2011, pp. 39–40
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 123–124
94. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 109
Engel 2011, p. 47
95. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 88
Choo 2016, pp. 91–92
Montmarquet 1987, pp. 482–483]
96. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 50–51
DiFate, Lead section, § 1. The Nature of Evidence: What Is It and What Does It Do?
Kelly 2016, Lead section
McGrew 2011, pp. 58–59
97. McGrew 2011, p. 59
98. Sudduth, Lead section, § 2c. Constraints on Propositional Defeaters
McPherson 2020, p. 10 ([Link]
0)
99. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 51
Kelly 2016, § 1. Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief
100. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 18–19, 44
Hookway 2005a, p. 134
Hookway 2005b, p. 220
101. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 150
Grimm 2011, pp. 84, 88
Gordon, Lead section
102. Kekes 2005, p. 959
Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 157
Whitcomb 2011, p. 95
103. Cohen 1998, § Article Summary
Hookway 2005, p. 838
Moser 2011, p. 200 ([Link]
104. Hookway 2005, p. 838
Bergmann 2021, p. 57 ([Link]
7)
105. Hazlett 2014, p. 18 ([Link]
Levine 1999, p. 11 ([Link]
106. Hookway 2005, p. 838
Comesaña & Klein 2024, Lead section
107. Windt 2021, § 1.1 Cartesian Dream Skepticism
Klein 1998, § 8. The Epistemic Principles and Scepticism
Hetherington, "Knowledge", § 4. Sceptical Doubts About Knowing
108. Hookway 2005, p. 838
Steup & Neta 2024, § 6.1 General Skepticism and Selective Skepticism
109. Steup & Neta 2024, § 6.2 Responses to the Closure Argument
Reed 2015, p. 75 ([Link]
110. Cohen 1998, § 1. The Philosophical Problem of Scepticism, § 2. Responses to Scepticism
111. Hetherington, "Fallibilism", Lead section, § 9. Implications of Fallibilism: Knowing
Fallibly?
Rescher 1998, § Article Summary
112. Rescher 1998, § Article Summary
Hetherington, "Fallibilism", § 9. Implications of Fallibilism: Knowing Fallibly?
113. Carter 2017, p. 292 ([Link]
Luper 2004, pp. 271–272
114. Wolenski 2004, pp. 17–18, 22–23
115. Lacey 2005, p. 242
Markie & Folescu 2023, Lead section, § 1.2 Empiricism
116. Lacey 2005a, p. 783
117. Lacey 2005a, p. 783
Markie & Folescu 2023, Lead section, § 1. Introduction
118. Tieszen 2005, p. 175 ([Link]
119. Lacey 2005a, p. 783
Markie & Folescu 2023, Lead section, § 1. Introduction
Hales 2009, p. 29 ([Link]
120. Bradley 2015, pp. 170–171 ([Link]
0)
121. Audi 1988, pp. 407–408
Stairs 2017, pp. 155–156
Margolis 2007, p. 214 ([Link]
4)
122. Bradley 2015, p. 170 ([Link]
123. Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, p. 64
124. Stairs 2017, pp. 155–156
Margolis 2007, p. 214 ([Link]
4)
125. Stairs 2017, p. 155
126. Stairs 2017, pp. 156–157
O'Brien 2006, p. 77 ([Link]
127. Ruppert, Schlüter & Seide 2016, p. 59 ([Link]
AQBAJ&pg=PA59)
Tramel 2008, pp. 215–216
128. Bradley 2015, pp. 170–171 ([Link]
=PA170)
Stairs 2017, pp. 155–156
129. BonJour 2016.
130. Pappas 2023, Lead section
Crumley II 2009, pp. 159–160
Fumerton 2011, Lead section
131. Bernecker 2013, Note 1
Wilson 2023
132. Pappas 2023, Lead section
Poston, Lead section
Crumley II 2009, pp. 159–160
133. Crumley II 2009, p. 160
134. Crumley II 2009, pp. 99, 298
Carter & Littlejohn 2021, § 9.3.3 An Evidentialist Argument
Mittag, Lead section
135. Mittag, § 2b. Evidence
136. Crumley II 2009, pp. 99, 298
137. Crumley II 2009, pp. 83, 301
Olsson 2016
138. Crumley II 2009, p. 84
Lyons 2016, pp. 160–162
Olsson 2016
139. Crumley II 2009, pp. 175–176
Baehr, "Virtue Epistemology", Lead section, § 1. Introduction to Virtue Epistemology
140. Brown 1992, p. 341
Crumley II 2009, pp. 268–269, 277–278, 300–301
141. Chiari & Nuzzo 2009, p. 21 ([Link]
PA21)
Crumley II 2009, pp. 215–216, 301
142. Cockram & Morton 2017
Baumann 2016, pp. 59–60
143. Foley 1983, p. 165
Vahid, Lead section, § 1. Doxastic Conservatism: The Debate
144. Legg & Hookway 2021, Lead section, § 4. Pragmatist Epistemology
Kelly & Cordeiro 2020, p. 1
145. Titelbaum 2022, pp. 3, 31–32 ([Link]
=PA3)
Cozic 2018, Confirmation and Induction ([Link]
AQBAJ&pg=PA68)
146. Pietersma 2000, pp. 3–4
Howarth 1998, § Article Summary
147. Greco 2021, § 1. Methodology in Epistemology: Particularism and Generalism
Lemos 2005, pp. 488–489
Dancy 2010, pp. 532–533
148. Greco 2021, § 2. Methodology in Epistemology: Beyond Particularism
Gardiner 2015, pp. 31, 33–35 ([Link]
g=PA31)
149. Clough & McHugh 2020, p. 177 ([Link]
&pg=PA177)
Grasswick 2018, Lead section
150. Sharpe 2018, pp. 318–319
Best & Kellner 1991, p. 165 ([Link]
=PA165)
151. Anderson 1995, p. 50
Anderson 2024, Lead section
152. Lee 2017, p. 67 ([Link]
Dreyer 2017, pp. 1–7
153. Phillips 1998, Lead section
Phillips & Vaidya 2024, Lead section
Bhatt & Mehrotra 2017, pp. 12–13 ([Link]
AJ&pg=PA12)
154. Phillips 1998, § 1. Buddhist Pragmatism and Coherentism
Siderits 2021, p. 332 ([Link]
2)
155. Phillips 1998, § 2. Nyāya Reliabilism
Dasti, Lead section, § 1.f.i. A Causal Theory of Knowledge
156. Phillips 1998, § 2. Mīmāṃsā Self-certificationalism
157. Webb, § 2. Epistemology and Logic
Sethia 2004, p. 93 ([Link]
158. Chimakonam & Ogbonnaya 2021, pp. 179–182
Jimoh 2017, pp. 121–122
159. McCain & Kampourakis 2019, pp. xiii–xiv ([Link]
AAQBAJ&pg=PR13)
Bird 2010, p. 5 ([Link]
Merritt 2020, pp. 1–2 ([Link]
h-to-mond/epistemology-of-science/065BF49E6DE64BA37364BA90542815D0)
160. Murawski 2004, pp. 571–572
Sierpinska & Lerman 1996, pp. 827–828 ([Link]
-94-009-1465-0_23)
161. Warren 2020, § 6. The Epistemology of Logic
162. McDaniel 2020, § 7.2 The Epistemology of Metaphysics
Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?
163. DeLapp, Lead section, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology
164. Chignell 2018, Lead section
165. McNabb 2019, pp. 1–3, 22–23
Howard-Snyder & McKaughan 2023, pp. 96–97 ([Link]
5LTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96)
166. Tanesini 2017, Lead section
O’Connor, Goldberg & Goldman 2024, Lead section, § 1. What Is Social Epistemology?
167. Ávila & Almeida 2023, p. 235 ([Link]
=PA235)
Vermeir 2013, pp. 65–66 ([Link]
65)
Sturm 2011, pp. 303–304, 306, 308
168. Sturm 2011, pp. 303–304, 08–309
169. Sturm 2011, p. 304
170. Crumley II 2009, pp. 183–184, 188–189, 300
Wrenn, Lead section
Rysiew 2021, § 2. 'Epistemology Naturalized'
171. Bradie & Harms 2023, Lead section
Gontier, Lead section
172. Barber 2003, pp. 1–3, 10–11, 15
173. Vaidya & Wallner 2021, pp. 1909–1910
174. Croce 2023, Lead section
175. Maguire 2015, pp. 33–34 ([Link]
176. Siegel, Silins & Matthen 2014, p. 781
177. Conee 1998, Lead section
178. Pritchard 2004, p. 326 ([Link]
179. Douven & Schupbach 2014, Lead section
180. Segura 2009, pp. 557–558
Hendricks 2006, p. 115 ([Link]
181. Beebe 2017, Lead section
182. Lackey 2021, pp. 3, 8–9, 13
183. Fricker 2007, pp. 1–2
Crichton, Carel & Kidd 2017, pp. 65–66
184. Gerken 2018, Lead section
Mchugh, Way & Whiting 2019, pp. 1–2
185. Gerken 2018, Lead section
186. Alston 2006, p. 2
187. Kitchener 1992, p. 119 ([Link]
9)
Crumley II 2009, p. 16
Schmitt 2004, pp. 841–842
188. Schmitt 2004, pp. 841–842
Friedenberg, Silverman & Spivey 2022, pp. 2–3
189. Wheeler & Pereira 2004, pp. 469–470, 472, 491
190. Rosenberg 2002, p. 184 ([Link]
A184)
Steup & Neta 2024, § 4.1 Foundationalism
Audi 2002, p. 90
191. Clark 2009, p. 516 ([Link]
192. Stairs 2017, p. 156 ([Link]
193. Hansen 2023, § 3.5 The Epistemic Approach to Fallacies
194. Hansen 2023, Lead section
Chatfield 2017, p. 194 ([Link]
94)
195. Rescher 2005, p. 1 ([Link]
Rendsvig, Symons & Wang 2024, Lead section
196. Kaplan 2005, pp. 434, 443–444
Steele & Stefánsson 2020, Lead section, § 7. Concluding Remarks
Hooker, Leach & McClennen 2012, pp. xiii–xiv ([Link]
CAAAQBAJ&pg=PR13)
197. Steele & Stefánsson 2020, Lead section
198. Kaplan 2005, pp. 434, 443–444
Steele & Stefánsson 2020, § 7. Concluding Remarks
199. Chazan 2022, p. 15
Leong 2007, § Abstract, § Some Implications for Educators ([Link]
om/education/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/epistemology-and-education)
200. Kelly 2004, pp. 183–184
Harasim 2017, p. 4
201. Harasim 2017, p. 11
202. Harasim 2017, pp. 11–12
203. Watkins & Mortimore 1999, pp. 1–3
Payne 2003, p. 264 ([Link]
Gabriel 2022, p. 16 ([Link]
204. Emaliana 2017, pp. 59–61
205. Hofer 2008, pp. 3–4 ([Link]
Hofer 2001, pp. 353–354, 369–370
206. Allwood 2013, pp. 69–72 ([Link]
3.wbeccp025)
Barth 2002, pp. 1–2
207. Coser 2009, Knowledge, Sociology of ([Link]
nd-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/sociology-kn
owledge)
Tufari 2003, Knowledge, Sociology of ([Link]
MAAJ)
Scheler & Stikkers 2012, p. 23 ([Link]
=PA23)
208. Hamlyn 2005, p. 260
Pappas 1998, § Ancient Philosophy
209. Pappas 1998, § Ancient Philosophy
210. Pappas 1998, § Ancient Philosophy
Hamlyn 2005, p. 260
Wolenski 2004, p. 7
211. Hamlyn 2006, pp. 287–288
Wolenski 2004, p. 8
212. Hamlyn 2006, p. 288
Vogt 2011, p. 44 ([Link]
213. Wolenski 2004, p. 8
Pappas 1998, § Ancient Philosophy
214. Adkins & Adkins 2014, p. 393 ([Link]
215. Gerson 2014, pp. 266–267, 277–278 ([Link]
g=PA266)
216. Dunne 2006, p. 753
217. Black, Lead section
218. Fountoulakis 2021, p. 23 ([Link]
23)
Warder 1998, pp. 43–44
Fletcher et al. 2020, p. 46 ([Link]
A46)
219. Prasad 1987, p. 48
Dasti, Lead section
Bhatt 1989, p. 72 ([Link]
220. Prasad 1987, p. 6
Dunne 2006, p. 753
221. Bonevac 2023, p. xviii ([Link]
222. Rošker 2021, Lead section, § 2.1 Relational Epistemology
Shen 2006, pp. 215–216, 219
223. Littlejohn, § 2a. The Mozi, Later Mohists and Debaters (bianshi)
Shen 2006, p. 216
224. Littlejohn, § 2c. Mencius (Mengzi, c. 372-289 B.C.E.) and Analogical Reasoning
Shen 2006, p. 216
225. Littlejohn, § 2d. Xunzi (310-220 B.C.E.): Dispelling Obsessions
Shen 2006, p. 216
226. Wolenski 2004, pp. 10–11
Koterski 2011, pp. 9–10 ([Link]
227. Wolenski 2004, p. 11
Schoenbaum 2015, p. 181 ([Link]
PA181)
228. Griffel 2020, Lead section, § 3. Al-Ghazâlî's 'Refutations' of Falsafa and Ismâ'îlism
Vassilopoulou & Clark 2009, p. 303 ([Link]
AJ&pg=PA303)
229. Wolenski 2004, p. 11
Holopainen 2010, p. 75 ([Link]
5)
230. Wolenski 2004, p. 11
231. Wolenski 2004, p. 11
Hamlyn 2006, pp. 289–290
232. Kaye, Lead section, § 4a. Direct Realist Empiricism
Antognazza 2024, p. 86 ([Link]
86)
233. Phillips 2024, Lead section
Prasad 1987, pp. 2, 8, 200–202
234. Littlejohn, § 2g. Wang Yangming on liangzhi: Direct, Clear, Universal Knowledge, § 3h.
Wang Yangming: Moral Willing as Knowing
Shen 2006, pp. 219–222
235. Wolenski 2004, pp. 14–15
236. Wolenski 2004, pp. 14–15
Hamlyn 2006, p. 291
237. Hamlyn 2005, p. 261
Evans 2018, p. 298 ([Link]
238. Wolenski 2004, pp. 17–18
Hamlyn 2006, pp. 298–299
Hamlyn 2005, p. 261
239. Coventry & Merrill 2018, p. 161 ([Link]
&pg=PA161)
Pappas 1998, § Modern Philosophy: From Hume to Peirce
Wolenski 2004, pp. 22–23
240. Wolenski 2004, pp. 27–30
Pappas 1998, § Modern Philosophy: From Hume to Peirce
Thorpe 2014, p. 5 ([Link]
241. Pappas 1998, § Modern Philosophy: From Hume to Peirce
Hamlyn 2005, p. 262
242. Hamlyn 2005, p. 262
Hamlyn 2006, p. 312
243. Pappas 1998, § Modern Philosophy: From Hume to Peirce
244. Pappas 1998, § Twentieth Century
Kvasz & Zeleňák 2009, p. 71 ([Link]
PA71)
245. Rockmore 2011, pp. 131–132
Wolenski 2004, p. 44
Hamlyn 2006, p. 312
246. Hamlyn 2005, p. 262
247. Pappas 1998, § Twentieth Century
Hamlyn 2006, p. 315
Wolenski 2004, pp. 48–49
248. Baldwin 2010, § 6. Common Sense and Certainty
Wolenski 2004, p. 49
249. Hamlyn 2006, pp. 317–318
250. Hamlyn 2005, p. 262
Beilby 2017, p. 74 ([Link]
Pappas 1998, § Twentieth Century
251. Goldman & Beddor 2021, Lead section, § 1. A Paradigm Shift in Analytic Epistemology
Pappas 1998, § Twentieth Century, § Recent Issues
252. Goldman & Beddor 2021, § 4.1 Virtue Reliabilism
Crumley II 2009, p. 175
253. Crumley II 2009, pp. 183–184, 188–189
254. Pappas 1998, § Recent Issues
Vagelli 2019, p. 96 ([Link]

Bibliography
Adkins, Lesley; Adkins, Roy A. (2014). Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=zGY1Sqjwf8kC). Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7482-2.
Allwood, Carl Martin (2013). "Anthropology of Knowledge". The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural
Psychology ([Link] John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 69–72. doi:10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp025 ([Link]
2%2F9781118339893.wbeccp025). ISBN 978-1-118-33989-3. Archived ([Link]
g/web/20220926085332/[Link]
p025) from the original on 26 September 2022. Retrieved 26 September 2022.
Alston, William Payne (2006). Beyond Justification: Dimensions of Epistemic Evaluation.
Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-4291-9.
Anderson, Elizabeth (1995). "Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and a Defense" (https://
[Link]/stable/3810237). Hypatia. 10 (3): 50–84. doi:10.1111/j.1527-
2001.1995.tb00737.x ([Link] ISSN 0887-
5367 ([Link] JSTOR 3810237 ([Link]
e/3810237). Archived ([Link]
e/3810237) from the original on 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Anderson, Elizabeth (2024). "Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/feminism-epistemology/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
14000453/[Link] from the original on 14
October 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Antognazza, Maria Rosa (2024). "Knowledge as Presence and Presentation: Highlights from
the History of Knowledge-First Epistemology" ([Link]
QBAJ&pg=PA86). In Logins, Arturs; Vollet, Jacques-Henri (eds.). Putting Knowledge to Work.
Oxford University PRess. ISBN 978-0-19-288237-0. Archived ([Link]
40718160022/[Link] from the
original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Audi, Robert (1988). "Foundationalism, Coherentism, and Epistemological Dogmatism".
Philosophical Perspectives. 2: 407–442. doi:10.2307/2214083 ([Link]
4083). JSTOR 2214083 ([Link]
Audi, Robert (2002). "The Sources of Knowledge". The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology (htt
ps://[Link]/rec/AUDTSO-3). Oxford University Press. pp. 71–94. ISBN 978-0-19-
513005-8. Archived ([Link]
UDTSO-3) from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
Audi, Robert (2003). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge
(2 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-28108-9.
Audi, Robert (2006). "Testimony, Credulity, and Veracity" ([Link]
YPTEeIhOXYC&pg=PA38). In Lackey, Jennifer; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). The Epistemology of
Testimony. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-153473-7. Archived ([Link]
20240822122207/[Link]
&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
Ávila, Gabriel da Costa; Almeida, Tiago Santos (2023). "Lorraine Daston's Historical
Epistemology: Style, Program, and School" ([Link]
AJ&pg=PA235). In Condé, Mauro L.; Salomon, Marlon (eds.). Handbook for the Historiography
of Science. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-27510-4. Archived ([Link]
20240822122210/[Link]
e&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Ayers, Michael (2019). Knowing and Seeing: Groundwork for a New Empiricism ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=Qt-RDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
257012-3. Archived ([Link]
ooks?id=Qt-RDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4) from the original on 18 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August
2024.
Baehr, Jason S. "Virtue Epistemology" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/virtue-epistemology/) from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Baehr, Jason S. "A Priori and A Posteriori" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
ori/) from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
Baldwin, Tom (2010). "George Edward Moore" ([Link] The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived ([Link]
e/) from the original on 15 March 2023. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
Barber, Alex (2003). "Introduction". In Barber, Alex (ed.). Epistemology of Language. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925057-8.
Barnett, Ronald (1990). The Idea Of Higher Education ([Link]
lAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40). Open University Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-335-09420-2. Archived (htt
ps://[Link]/web/20230305174659/[Link]
J&pg=PA40) from the original on 5 March 2023. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
Barth, Fredrik (2002). "An Anthropology of Knowledge". Current Anthropology. 43 (1): 1–18.
doi:10.1086/324131 ([Link] hdl:1956/4191 ([Link]
t/1956%2F4191). ISSN 0011-3204 ([Link]
Baumann, Peter (2016). "Epistemic Contrastivism, Knowledge and Practical Reasoning".
Erkenntnis. 81 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1007/s10670-015-9728-z ([Link]
-015-9728-z).
Beebe, James (2017). "Experimental Epistemology" ([Link]
ematic/experimental-epistemology/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P067-1 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/experimental-epistemology/v-1) from the original on 30
July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Beilby, James (2017). Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga's Religious
Epistemology ([Link] Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-351-93932-4. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=omdQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74) from the original on 17 July 2024.
Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Benton, Matthew (2024). "The Epistemology of Interpersonal Relations" ([Link]
1/nous.12499). Noûs. early view: 1–20. doi:10.1111/nous.12499 ([Link]
us.12499). Archived ([Link]
om/doi/10.1111/nous.12499) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 29 April 2024.
Bergmann, Michael (2021). Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition ([Link]
om/books?id=T7EzEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-265357-
4. Archived ([Link]
T7EzEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57) from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Bernecker, Sven (3 September 2013). "Triangular Externalism". In Lepore, Ernie; Ludwig, Kirk
(eds.). A Companion to Donald Davidson ([Link]
28408.ch25) (1 ed.). Wiley. pp. 443–455. doi:10.1002/9781118328408.ch25 ([Link]
1002%2F9781118328408.ch25). ISBN 978-0-470-67370-6. Archived ([Link]
eb/20240509104056/[Link] from the
original on 9 May 2024. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
Best, Steven; Kellner, Douglas (1991). Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=vZBKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-
349-21718-2. Archived ([Link]
m/books?id=vZBKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the original on 22
August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Bhatt, Govardhan P. (1989). The Basic Ways of Knowing: An In-depth Study of Kumārila's
Contribution to Indian Epistemology ([Link]
PA72) (Bhatt 1989 p72 ed.). Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 978-81-208-0580-4.
Archived ([Link]
pIQgJhpmsIC&pg=PA72) from the original on 14 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Bhatt, S. R.; Mehrotra, Anu (2017). Buddhist Epistemology ([Link]
=D4kwEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11). Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 978-81-208-4114-7.
Archived ([Link]
4kwEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11) from the original on 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Bird, Alexander (2010). "The Epistemology of Science—a Bird's-eye View" ([Link]
g/stable/40801354). Synthese. 175: 5–16. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9740-4 ([Link]
007%2Fs11229-010-9740-4). ISSN 0039-7857 ([Link]
JSTOR 40801354 ([Link] Archived ([Link]
eb/20240727035537/[Link] from the original on 27 July 2024.
Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Blaauw, Martijn; Pritchard, Duncan (2005). Epistemology A - Z. Edinburgh University Press.
ISBN 978-0-7486-2213-9.
Black, Brian. "Upanisads" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived ([Link] from
the original on 14 May 2024. Retrieved 14 July 2024.
Bonevac, Daniel (2023). Historical Dictionary of Ethics ([Link]
DwEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR18). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-7572-9. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20240715122705/[Link]
&pg=PR18) from the original on 15 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
BonJour, Laurence (2016). "2. Goldman Against Internalism" ([Link]
id=2jcZDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT37). In McLaughlin, Brian P.; Kornblith, Hilary (eds.). Goldman and
His Critics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-60917-0. Archived ([Link]
b/20240822122217/[Link]
e&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
Braddon-Mitchell, David; Jackson, Frank (2011). "Belief". Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy ([Link] Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-V006-2 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/belief/v-2) from the original on 22 August 2024.
Retrieved 21 August 2024.
Bradie, Michael; Harms, William (2023). "Evolutionary Epistemology" ([Link]
u/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
ps://[Link]/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/) from the original on 9 December
2022. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
Bradley, Darren (2015). A Critical Introduction to Formal Epistemology ([Link]
m/books?id=qKXDCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78093-764-
9. Archived ([Link]
qKXDCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170) from the original on 1 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Brenner, William H. (1993). Logic and Philosophy: An Integrated Introduction ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=DFoFDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT16). University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-
0-268-15898-9. Archived ([Link]
om/books?id=DFoFDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT16) from the original on 30 June 2023. Retrieved
5 July 2023.
Broncano-Berrocal, Fernando; Carter, J. Adam (2017). "Epistemic Luck". Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
1). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P064-1 ([Link]
26-P064-1). ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
9/[Link] from the original on 16
August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Brown, Harold I. (1992). "Direct Realism, Indirect Realism, and Epistemology". Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research. 52 (2): 341–363. doi:10.2307/2107939 ([Link]
2F2107939). JSTOR 2107939 ([Link]
Brown, Derek H. (2016). "A Study in Deflated Acquaintance Knowledge: Sense-Datum Theory
and Perceptual Constancy" ([Link]
4). In Costreie, Sorin (ed.). Early Analytic Philosophy - New Perspectives on the Tradition.
Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-24214-9. Archived ([Link]
tps://[Link]/books?id=gMdyCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104) from the original on 19
August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2008). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. John
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-99721-5.
Campbell, Richmond (2024). "Moral Epistemology" ([Link]
stemology/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived ([Link]
ntries/moral-epistemology/) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
Carter, J. Adam (2017). "Epistemological Implications of Relativism" ([Link]
books?id=RzslDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA292). In Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins (ed.). The Routledge
Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-59469-7. Archived (h
ttps://[Link]/web/20240731114910/[Link]
AJ&pg=PA292) from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Carter, J. Adam; Littlejohn, Clayton (2021). This Is Epistemology: An Introduction ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=n_ArEAAAQBAJ). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-68034-5.
Archived ([Link]
_ArEAAAQBAJ) from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Chatfield, Tom (2017). Critical Thinking: Your Guide to Effective Argument, Successful Analysis
and Independent Study ([Link]
Sage. ISBN 978-1-5264-1877-7. Archived ([Link]
s://[Link]/books?id=6Xg4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA194) from the original on 26 March
2023. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Chazan, Barry (2022). "What Is "Education"?". Principles and Pedagogies in Jewish
Education. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 13–21. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_3 ([Link]
10.1007%2F978-3-030-83925-3_3). ISBN 978-3-030-83924-6.
Chiari, Gabriele; Nuzzo, Maria Laura (2009). Constructivist Psychotherapy: A Narrative
Hermeneutic Approach ([Link]
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-23991-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link] from the original on 2 August
2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Chignell, Andrew (2018). "The Ethics of Belief" ([Link]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived ([Link]
s-belief/) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
Chimakonam, Jonathan O.; Ogbonnaya, L. Uchenna (2021). "Toward an African Theory of
Knowledge". African Metaphysics, Epistemology and a New Logic: A Decolonial Approach to
Philosophy ([Link] Springer
International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-72445-0.
Choo, Chun Wei (2016). "5. Epistemic Virtues and Vices". The Inquiring Organization: How
Organizations Acquire Knowledge and Seek Information. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–114.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782031.003.0005 ([Link]
o%2F9780199782031.003.0005). ISBN 978-0-19-045959-8.
Clark, Kelly James (2009). "Return to Reason: The Irrationality of Evidentialism" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=i1tNI9646Q4C&pg=PA516). In Zagzebski, Linda; Miller, Timothy D.
(eds.). Readings in Philosophy of Religion: Ancient to Contemporary. John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 978-1-4051-8092-4. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=i1tNI9646Q4C&pg=PA516) from the original on 26 July 2024.
Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Clough, Sharyn; McHugh, Nancy Arden (2020). " 'Where Are All of the Pragmatist Feminist
Philosophers of Science?' " ([Link]
7). In Crasnow, Sharon; Intemann, Kristen (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Feminist
Philosophy of Science. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-01821-3. Archived ([Link]
g/web/20240822122728/[Link]
onepage&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
Cockram, Nathan; Morton, Adam (2017). "Contrastivism" ([Link]
m/display/document/obo-9780195396577/[Link]). Oxford
Bibliographies. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0346 ([Link]
g/10.1093%2Fobo%2F9780195396577-0346). Archived ([Link]
1104111/[Link]
[Link]) from the original on 1 February 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Cohen, Stewart (1998). "Scepticism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/scepticism/v-1). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P045-
1 ([Link] ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived (ht
tps://[Link]/web/20240731114908/[Link]
epticism/v-1) from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
Comesaña, Juan; Comesaña, Manuel (2022). Skepticism: The Basics ([Link]
m/books?id=LaFhEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT44). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-56823-3. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240815082620/[Link]
J&pg=PT44) from the original on 15 August 2024. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
Comesaña, Juan; Klein, Peter (2024). "Skepticism" ([Link]
m/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived ([Link]
ntries/skepticism/) from the original on 23 August 2020. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
Conee, Earl (1998). "Memory, Epistemology of" ([Link]
ic/memory-epistemology-of/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P032-1 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/memory-epistemology-of/v-1) from the original on 30
July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Coser, Lewis A. (2009) [1968]. "Knowledge, Sociology of". International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences ([Link]
eform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/sociology-knowledge). Gale. ISBN 978-0-02-
928751-4. Archived ([Link]
om/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concept
s/sociology-knowledge) from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
Coventry, Angela; Merrill, Kenneth R. (2018). Historical Dictionary of Hume's Philosophy (http
s://[Link]/books?id=X950DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161). Rowman & Littlefield.
ISBN 978-1-5381-1916-7. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=X950DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161) from the original on 16 July 2024.
Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Cozic, Mikaël (2018). "Confirmation and Induction" ([Link]
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68). In Barberousse, Anouk; Bonnay, Denis; Cozic, Mikael (eds.). The
Philosophy of Science: A Companion. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-069065-6.
Archived ([Link]
CxhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68) from the original on 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Crichton, Paul; Carel, Havi; Kidd, Ian James (2017). "Epistemic Injustice in Psychiatry" (https://
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC5376720). BJPsych Bulletin. 41 (2): 65–70.
doi:10.1192/[Link].115.050682 ([Link] PMC 5376720
([Link] PMID 28400962 ([Link]
[Link]/28400962).
Croce, Michel (2023). "The Epistemology of Disagreement" ([Link]
cles/thematic/the-epistemology-of-disagreement/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
([Link] Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P081R1-1
([Link] ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.
Crumley II, Jack S. (2009). An Introduction to Epistemology ([Link]
d=62gYgpeVT28C) (2 ed.). Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-77048-156-5. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240712122155/[Link] from
the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Dancy, Jonathan (2010). "Moral Epistemology". In Dancy, Jonathan; Sosa, Ernest; Steup,
Matthias (eds.). A Companion to Epistemology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-1509-7.
Dasti, Matthew R. "Nyaya" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived ([Link] from
the original on 4 October 2012. Retrieved 14 July 2024.
Degenhardt, M. A. B. (2019). Education and the Value of Knowledge ([Link]
m/books?id=FuCsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1). Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-000-62799-2.
Archived ([Link]
uCsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1) from the original on 5 April 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
DeLapp, Kevin M. "Metaethics" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
thi/) from the original on 23 January 2024. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
DiFate, Victor. "Evidence" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived ([Link] from
the original on 25 June 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
Dika, Tarek (2023). Descartes's Method: The Formation of the Subject of Science ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=-9itEAAAQBAJ). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-286986-9.
Archived ([Link]
itEAAAQBAJ) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Douven, Igor; Schupbach, Jonah N. (2014). "Formal Epistemology". The Oxford Handbook of
Topics in Philosophy. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.19
([Link] ISBN 978-0-19-993531-4.
Dowden, Bradley; Swartz, Norman. "Truth" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
Dretske, Fred (2005). "Belief". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Dreyer, Jaco S. (2017). "Practical Theology and the Call for the Decolonisation of Higher
Education in South Africa: Reflections and Proposals" ([Link]
05). HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 73 (4): 1–7. doi:10.4102/hts.v73i4.4805 (htt
ps://[Link]/10.4102%2Fhts.v73i4.4805).
Dunne, John D. (2006). "Buddhist Epistemology". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2 ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-865781-3.
Emaliana, Ive (2017). "Teacher-Centered or Student-Centered Learning Approach To Promote
Learning?" ([Link] Jurnal Sosial Humaniora. 10
(2): 59. doi:10.12962/j24433527.v10i2.2161 ([Link]
1). S2CID 148796695 ([Link]
Engel, Pascal (2011). "Epistemic Norms". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The
Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
(0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books/edit/10.4324/9780203839065/routledge-companion-epistemology-s
ven-bernecker-duncan-pritchard) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 10 August
2024.
Evans, C. Stephen (2018). A History of Western Philosophy: From the Pre-Socratics to
Postmodernism ([Link]
InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-7369-2. Archived ([Link]
171406/[Link] from the original on
16 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Fletcher, Robert; Romero, Paola; Talbot, Marianne; Warburton, Nigel; Whiston, Amna (2020).
Philosophy: A Visual Encyclopedia ([Link]
PA46). Dorling Kindersley Limited. ISBN 978-0-241-50422-2.
Foley, Richard (1983). "Epistemic Conservatism". Philosophical Studies. 43 (2): 165–182.
doi:10.1007/bf00372381 ([Link]
Foley, Richard (1998). "Justification, Epistemic". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http
s://[Link]/articles/thematic/justification-epistemic/v-1). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P030-1 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/justification-epistemic/v-1) from the original on 13 August
2024. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
Foley, Richard (2011). "Epistemic Rationality". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.).
The Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
012) (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
065). ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2. Archived ([Link]
s://[Link]/books/edit/10.4324/9780203839065/routledge-companion-epistemol
ogy-sven-bernecker-duncan-pritchard) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved
10 August 2024.
Fountoulakis, Konstantinos N. (2021). Psychiatry: From Its Historical and Philosophical Roots
to the Modern Face ([Link]
Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-86541-2. Archived ([Link]
5845/[Link] from the original on 18
July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823790-7.
Friedenberg, Jay; Silverman, Gordon; Spivey, Michael (2022). Cognitive Science: An
Introduction to the Study of Mind (4 ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-5443-8015-5.
Fumerton, Richard A. (2006). Epistemology. Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-2566-6.
Fumerton, Richard (19 January 2011). "Skepticism and Epistemic Externalism". In Bernecker,
Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
[Link]/books/9781136882012) (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
[Link]/10.4324%2F9780203839065). ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2. Archived ([Link]
rg/web/20240822123252/[Link]
utledge-companion-epistemology-sven-bernecker-duncan-pritchard) from the original on 22
August 2024. Retrieved 10 August 2024.
Gabriel, Cle-Anne (2022). Why Teach with Cases?: Reflections on Philosophy and Practice (ht
tps://[Link]/books?id=PreYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16). Emerald Group Publishing.
ISBN 978-1-80382-399-7. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=PreYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16) from the original on 20 December 2023.
Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Gardiner, J. M. (2001). "Episodic Memory and Autonoetic Consciousness: A First-person
Approach" ([Link] Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 356 (1413): 1351–
1361. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0955 ([Link] ISSN 0962-
8436 ([Link] PMC 1088519 ([Link]
v/pmc/articles/PMC1088519). PMID 11571027 ([Link]
Gardiner, Georgi (2015). "Teleologies and the Methodology of Epistemology" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=xn2ECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA31). In Henderson, David K.; Greco, John (eds.).
Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
106256-8. Archived ([Link]
ooks?id=xn2ECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA31) from the original on 19 August 2024. Retrieved
19 August 2024.
Gerken, Mikkel (2018). "Metaepistemology" ([Link]
etaepistemology/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/0123456789-P076-1 ([Link] ISBN 978-
0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/metaepistemology/v-1) from the original on 7 August 2024.
Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Gerson, Lloyd (2014). "17. Neoplatonic Epistemology". In Remes, Pauliina; Slaveva-Griffin,
Svetla (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism ([Link]
yhcWBAAAQBAJ). Routledge. pp. 266–279. ISBN 9781315744186.
Glanzberg, Michael (2023). "Truth" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20220120210351/[Link] from the
original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
Goldman, Alvin I. (1976). "Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge". The Journal of
Philosophy. 73 (20): 771–791. doi:10.2307/2025679 ([Link]
JSTOR 2025679 ([Link]
Goldman, Alvin; Beddor, Bob (2021). "Reliabilist Epistemology" ([Link]
es/reliabilism/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/reliabilism/) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
Goldman, Alvin; Bender, John (2005). "Justification, Epistemic". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Goldman, Alvin I.; McGrath, Matthew (2015). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-998112-0.
Gontier, Nathalie. "Evolutionary Epistemology" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/evo-epis/) from the original on 18 July 2019. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
Gordon, Emma C. "Understanding in Epistemology" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/understa/) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
Grasswick, Heidi (2018). "Feminist Social Epistemology" ([Link]
inist-social-epistemology/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/feminist-social-epistemology/) from the original on 3 June 2022. Retrieved
22 August 2024.
Greco, John (2021). "Epistemology". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
[Link]/articles/overview/epistemology/v-3/sections/the-value-of-knowledge-1).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P059-3 ([Link]
P059-3). ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
ps://[Link]/articles/overview/epistemology/v-3/sections/the-value-of-knowledg
e-1) from the original on 16 August 2024. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
Green, Christopher R. (2022). "Epistemology of Testimony" ([Link]
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link] from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
Griffel, Frank (2020). "Al-Ghazali" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20230528070053/[Link] from the
original on 28 May 2023. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
Grimm, Stephen R. (2011). "Understanding". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.).
The Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
012) (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
065). ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2. Archived ([Link]
s://[Link]/books/edit/10.4324/9780203839065/routledge-companion-epistemol
ogy-sven-bernecker-duncan-pritchard) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved
10 August 2024.
Gross, Matthias; McGoey, Linsey (2015). "Introduction". In Gross, Matthias; McGoey, Linsey
(eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies ([Link]
s?id=D75hCQAAQBAJ). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-96467-4. Archived ([Link]
g/web/20240815112538/[Link] from the
original on 15 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Haas, Jens; Vogt, Katja Maria (2015). "Ignorance and Investigation". In Gross, Matthias;
McGoey, Linsey (eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=D75hCQAAQBAJ). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-96467-4. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240815112538/[Link]
AJ) from the original on 15 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Hales, Steven D. (2009). Relativism and the Foundations of Philosophy ([Link]
om/books?id=sINRmT4rZ5wC&pg=PA29). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-26313-9. Archived (htt
ps://[Link]/web/20240731163843/[Link]
C&pg=PA29) from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Hamlyn, D. W. (2005). "Epistemology, History of". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford
Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Hamlyn, D. W. (2006). "Epistemology, History of". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Vol. 3 (2 ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-865783-7.
Hansen, Hans (2023). "Fallacies" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20210329182946/[Link] from the
original on 29 March 2021. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Harasim, Linda M. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies (2 ed.). Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-138-85999-9.
Harman, Gilbert (2013). "Rationality". The International Encyclopedia of Ethics ([Link]
[Link]/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee181) (1 ed.). Wiley.
doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee181 ([Link]
1). ISBN 978-1-4051-8641-4. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee181) from the original on 16
December 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
HarperCollins (2022a). "Knowledge" ([Link]
edge). The American Heritage Dictionary. HarperCollins. Archived ([Link]
b/20221129072236/[Link] from the
original on 29 November 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
HarperCollins (2022b). "Knowledge Base" ([Link]
knowledge+base). The American Heritage Dictionary. HarperCollins. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20220319181514/[Link]
from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
Hazlett, Allan (2014). A Critical Introduction to Skepticism ([Link]
4INnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA18). Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-4411-4407-2. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240731114919/[Link]
from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Heinzelmann, Nora (2023). "Rationality Is Not Coherence". The Philosophical Quarterly. 74
(1): 312–332. doi:10.1093/pq/pqac083 ([Link]
Hendricks, Vincent F. (2006). Mainstream and Formal Epistemology ([Link]
books?id=Bjnje5u2q9cC&pg=PA115). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85789-5.
Archived ([Link]
nje5u2q9cC&pg=PA115) from the original on 30 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Hetherington, Stephen. "Knowledge" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
edg/) from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
Hetherington, Stephen. "Fallibilism" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
l/) from the original on 18 August 2020. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
Hofer, Barbara K. (2001). "Personal Epistemology Research: Implications for Learning and
Teaching". Educational Psychology Review. 13 (4): 353–383. doi:10.1023/A:1011965830686
([Link]
Hofer, Barbara K. (2008). "Personal Epistemology and Culture" ([Link]
er/10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_1). Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies
Across Diverse Cultures. Springer Netherlands. pp. 3–22. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_1
([Link] ISBN 978-1-4020-6596-5. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240727111416/[Link]
0-6596-5_1) from the original on 27 July 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Holopainen, Toivo (2010). "Anselm of Canterbury" ([Link]
R3kd_8C&pg=PA75). In Lagerlund, Henrik (ed.). Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy:
Philosophy Between 500 and 1500. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-
9728-7. Archived ([Link]
ks?id=x5FiMR3kd_8C&pg=PA75) from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Hooker, C. A.; Leach, J. J.; McClennen, E. F. (2012). Foundations and Applications of Decision
Theory: Volume I Theoretical Foundations ([Link]
J&pg=PR13). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-009-9789-9. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20240822123823/[Link]
g=PR13#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Hookway, C. J. (2005). "Skepticism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Hookway, C. J. (2005a). "Certainty". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Hookway, C. J. (2005b). "Doubt". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Howard-Snyder, Daniel; McKaughan, Daniel J. (2023). "The Problem of Faith and Reason" (htt
ps://[Link]/books?id=M5LTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96). In Fuqua, Jonathan; Greco,
John; McNabb, Tyler (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Religious Epistemology. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-05145-3. Archived ([Link]
11527/[Link] from the original on
30 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Howarth, Jane (1998). "Phenomenology, Epistemic Issues in". Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy ([Link]
in/v-1). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P038-1 ([Link]
49126-P038-1). ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
5554/[Link]
from the original on 3 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins; Steup, Matthias (2018). "The Analysis of Knowledge" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/knowledge-analysis/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
02031402/[Link] from the original on 2 May
2022. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
Jenicek, Milos (2018). How to Think in Medicine: Reasoning, Decision Making, and
Communication in Health Sciences and Professions ([Link]
1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31). CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-351-68402-6. Archived ([Link]
org/web/20230705113356/[Link]
from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
Jimoh, Anselm Kole (2017). "An African Theory of Knowledge". Themes, Issues and Problems
in African Philosophy ([Link]
Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-40796-8.
Juhl, Cory; Loomis, Eric (2009). Analyticity ([Link]
J&pg=PR9). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-27841-0.
Kaplan, Mark (2005). "Decision Theory and Epistemology". In Moser, Paul K. (ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513005-8.
Kaye, Sharon. "Ockham (Occam), William of" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/ockham/) from the original on 23 July 2024. Retrieved 16 July 2024.
Kekes, John (2005). "Wisdom". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Kelly, Kevin (2004). "Learning Theory and Epistemology". In Niiniluoto, I.; Sintonen, Matti;
Wolenski, Jan (eds.). Handbook of Epistemology ([Link]
AAQBAJ). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-1986-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240712163703/[Link]
from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Kelly, Thomas (2016). "Evidence" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20210908185254/[Link] from the
original on 8 September 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
Kelly, Leanne M; Cordeiro, Maya (2020). "Three Principles of Pragmatism for Research on
Organizational Processes". Methodological Innovations. 13 (2).
doi:10.1177/2059799120937242 ([Link]
hdl:10536/DRO/DU:30142042 ([Link]
Kern, Andrea (2017). Sources of Knowledge: On the Concept of a Rational Capacity for
Knowledge ([Link] Harvard
University Press. pp. 8–10, 133. ISBN 978-0-674-41611-6. Archived ([Link]
eb/20221028125631/[Link] from the
original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022.
Khatoon, Naima (2012). General Psychology ([Link]
CXQC&pg=PA104). Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-81-317-5999-8. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240326091308/[Link]
PA104) from the original on 26 March 2024. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
Kiesewetter, Benjamin (2020). "Rationality as Reasons-Responsiveness". Australasian
Philosophical Review. 4 (4): 332–342. doi:10.1080/24740500.2021.1964239 ([Link]
0.1080%2F24740500.2021.1964239).
Kitchener, Richard (1992). "Piaget's Genetic Epistemology: Epistemological Implications for
Science Education" ([Link] In
Duschl, Richard A.; Hamilton, Richard J. (eds.). Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology,
and Educational Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-
0171-3. Archived ([Link]
ks?id=q_MxOPSqRjYC&pg=PA119) from the original on 27 July 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Klauer, Bernd; Manstetten, Reiner; Petersen, Thomas; Schiller, Johannes (2016).
Sustainability and the Art of Long-Term Thinking ([Link]
AQBAJ&pg=PA105). Taylor & Francis. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-1-134-98618-7. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20230401160116/[Link]
&pg=PA105) from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
Klausen, Søren Harnow (2015). "Group Knowledge: A Real-world Approach" ([Link]
[Link]/da/publications/bbee5873-28f2-46d5-94b6-49ef5b18a38b). Synthese. 192
(3): 813–839. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0589-9 ([Link]
9). S2CID 207246817 ([Link] Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20240201125116/[Link]
p-knowledge-a-real-world-approach) from the original on 1 February 2024. Retrieved
13 November 2022.
Klein, Peter D. (1998). "Knowledge, Concept of" ([Link]
tic/knowledge-concept-of/v-1). In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P031-1 ([Link]
P031-1). ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. OCLC 38096851 ([Link]
1). Archived ([Link]
cles/thematic/knowledge-concept-of/v-1) from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 13 June
2022.
Koterski, Joseph W. (2011). An Introduction to Medieval Philosophy: Basic Concepts ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=0Ejsz-WHGh4C&pg=PA9). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-
6067-7. Archived ([Link]
ks?id=0Ejsz-WHGh4C&pg=PA9) from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Kraft, Tim (2012). "Scepticism, Infallibilism, Fallibilism" ([Link]
Discipline Filosofiche. 22 (2): 49–70. ISSN 2279-7343 ([Link]
343). Archived ([Link]
F) from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (2011). "Epistemic Justification". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan
(eds.). The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-88200-5.
Kvasz, Ladislav; Zeleňák, Eugen (2009). "A Problem for Popper's Fallibilism" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=R3aywtFIKKsC&pg=PA71). In Parusniková, Zuzana; Cohen, Robert S.
(eds.). Rethinking Popper. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-9338-8.
Archived ([Link]
3aywtFIKKsC&pg=PA71) from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Lacey, Alan (2005). "Empiricism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Lacey, Alan (2005a). "Rationalism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Lackey, Jennifer (2021). The Epistemology of Groups ([Link]
hapter-abstract/267480629?redirectedFrom=fulltext). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
965660-8. Archived ([Link]
book/31841/chapter-abstract/267480629?redirectedFrom=fulltext) from the original on 25
October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
Lee, Jerry Won (2017). The Politics of Translingualism: After Englishes ([Link]
om/books?id=ZtArDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT67). Routledge. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-315-31051-0.
Archived ([Link]
ArDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT67) from the original on 8 March 2023. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
Legg, Catherine; Hookway, Christopher (2021). "Pragmatism" ([Link]
s/pragmatism/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/pragmatism/) from the original on 8 October 2020. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Lemos, Noah (2005). "Epistemology and Ethics". In Moser, Paul K. (ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513005-8.
Leonard, Nick (2021). "Epistemological Problems of Testimony" ([Link]
es/testimony-episprob/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/testimony-episprob/) from the original on 10 July 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
Leong, Wong Yew (2007). "Epistemology And Education". In Tan, Charlene (ed.). Philosophical
Reflections for Educators ([Link]
s-magazines/epistemology-and-education). Cengage Learning Asia. ISBN 978-981-4239-76-9.
Archived ([Link]
on/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/epistemology-and-education) from the original on
23 July 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Levine, Alan (1999). "1. Introduction" ([Link]
=PA11). In Levine, Alan (ed.). Early Modern Skepticism and the Origins of Toleration.
Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0024-0. Archived ([Link]
14913/[Link] from the original on 31
July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Lilley, Simon; Lightfoot, Geoffrey; Amaral, Paulo (2004). Representing Organization:
Knowledge, Management, and the Information Age ([Link]
DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA162). Oxford University Press. pp. 162–163. ISBN 978-0-19-877541-6.
Archived ([Link]
T8VDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA162) from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
Littlejohn, Ronnie. "Chinese Philosophy: Overview of Topics" ([Link]
sophy-overview-of-topics/). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 September 2024.
Lowe, E. J. (2005). "Truth". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Luper, Steven (2004). "Epistemic Relativism". Philosophical Issues. 14 (1): 271–295.
doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00031.x ([Link]
Lynch, Michael P. (2011). "Truth". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The Routledge
Companion to Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-88200-5.
Lyons, Jack C. (2016). "Goldman on Evidence and Reliability". In McLaughlin, Brian P.;
Kornblith, Hilary (eds.). Goldman and His Critics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-60917-
0.
Magee, Bryan; Popper, Karl R. (1971). "Conversation with Karl Popper" ([Link]
ails/modernbritishphi0000mage/page/66). In Magee, Bryan (ed.). Modern British Philosophy.
St. Martin's Press. pp. 74–75 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-19-283047-0. OCLC 314039 ([Link]
Maguire, Kate (2015). "The Epistemology of Ignorance" ([Link]
007/978-94-017-9309-4_4). Margaret Mead: Contributions to Contemporary Education.
SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer Netherlands. pp. 33–48. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9309-
4_4 ([Link] ISBN 978-94-017-9309-4. Archived (ht
tps://[Link]/web/20240729210427/[Link]
017-9309-4_4) from the original on 29 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Margolis, Joseph (2007). Pragmatism Without Foundations: Reconciling Realism and
Relativism ([Link] (2 ed.).
Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-6728-6. Archived ([Link]
0801111237/[Link] from the
original on 1 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Markie, Peter; Folescu, M. (2023). "Rationalism Vs. Empiricism" ([Link]
ies/rationalism-empiricism/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/rationalism-empiricism/) from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved
29 February 2024.
Martin, M. G. F. (1998). "Perception". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/perception/v-1). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-V023-
1 ([Link] ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived (ht
tps://[Link]/web/20240326091535/[Link]
erception/v-1) from the original on 26 March 2024. Retrieved 26 March 2024.
McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (2019). "Preface" ([Link]
APEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR13). In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What Is Scientific
Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-351-33661-1. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=wlAPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR13) from the original on 27 July 2024.
Retrieved 30 July 2024.
McCormick, Miriam Schleifer (2014). Believing Against the Evidence: Agency and the Ethics of
Belief ([Link] Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-136-68268-1. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=3BAhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA42) from the original on 17 August 2024.
Retrieved 19 August 2024.
McDaniel, Kris (2020). This Is Metaphysics: An Introduction ([Link]
d=3tDaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-40077-7. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240317183927/[Link]
J&pg=PA217) from the original on 17 March 2024. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
McGrew, Timothy (2011). "Evidence". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The
Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
(0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2.
Mchugh, Conor; Way, Jonathan; Whiting, Daniel (2019). "Introduction". In Mchugh, Conor;
Way, Jonathan; Whiting, Daniel (eds.). Metaepistemology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-880536-6.
McNabb, Tyler Dalton (2019). Religious Epistemology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-
1-108-45753-8.
McPherson, Tristram (2020). Epistemology and Methodology in Ethics ([Link]
m/books?id=6I7fDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-71340-
5. Archived ([Link]
=6I7fDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10) from the original on 20 August 2024. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
Meirmans, Stephanie; Butlin, Roger K.; Charmantier, Anne; Engelstädter, Jan; Groot, Astrid T.;
King, Kayla C.; Kokko, Hanna; Reid, Jane M.; Neiman, Maurine (2019). "Science Policies:
How Should Science Funding Be Allocated? An Evolutionary Biologists' Perspective" ([Link]
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC6771946). Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 32 (8): 754–
768. doi:10.1111/jeb.13497 ([Link] hdl:2164/12705 ([Link]
[Link]/2164%2F12705). PMC 6771946 ([Link]
71946). PMID 31215105 ([Link]
Mele, Alfred R.; Rawling, Piers (2004). "Introduction: Aspects of Rationality". In Mele, Alfred R.;
Rawling, Piers (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Rationality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-803324-0.
Merriam-Webster (2024). "Definition of Gnoseology" ([Link]
ary/gnoseology). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Archived ([Link]
org/web/20240622232146/[Link] from the
original on 22 June 2024. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G. van (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component
Instructional Design Model for Technical Training ([Link]
XuAC&pg=PA32). Educational Technology. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-87778-298-8. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230401155039/[Link]
PA32) from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
Merritt, David (2020). "1. The Epistemology of Science". A Philosophical Approach to MOND:
Assessing the Milgromian Research Program in Cosmology ([Link]
ooks/abs/philosophical-approach-to-mond/epistemology-of-science/065BF49E6DE64BA37364
BA90542815D0). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-66568-1. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240725165938/[Link]
approach-to-mond/epistemology-of-science/065BF49E6DE64BA37364BA90542815D0) from
the original on 25 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Mi, Chienkuo (2007). "What Is Naturalized Epistemology? The Quinean Project" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=wDx1SG8tS5oC&pg=PA113). In Mi, Chienkuo; Chen, Ruey-lin (eds.).
Naturalized Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-2198-3.
Michaelian, Kourken; Sutton, John (2017). "Memory: 3. Episodicity" ([Link]
entries/memory/#Epis). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/memory/#Epis) from the original on 5 October 2021. Retrieved 2 October
2021.
Mittag, Daniel M. "Evidentialism" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
alism/) from the original on 18 October 2023. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
Montmarquet, James A. (1987). "Epistemic Virtue" ([Link]
Mind. 96 (384): 482–497. doi:10.1093/mind/XCVI.384.482 ([Link]
FXCVI.384.482). ISSN 0026-4423 ([Link]
JSTOR 2253844 ([Link]
Morrison, Robert (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=znbkHaC8QeMC&pg=PA371). Cambridge University Press. p. 371.
ISBN 978-0-521-82417-0. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=znbkHaC8QeMC&pg=PA371) from the original on 30 March 2023.
Retrieved 16 April 2023.
Moser, Paul K. (2005). "Introduction". In Moser, Paul K. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Epistemology ([Link] Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-020818-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=5NJjAwAAQBAJ) from the original on 19 May 2023. Retrieved 13 July
2024.
Moser, Paul K. (2011). "Religious Skepticism" ([Link]
AQBAJ&pg=PA200). In Greco, John (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-990985-8. Archived ([Link]
4911/[Link] from the original on
31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Moser, Paul K. (2016). "A Posteriori" ([Link]
ori/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. Archived ([Link]
eb/20220920170718/[Link] from the
original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
Moss, Jessica (2021). Plato's Epistemology: Being and Seeming ([Link]
oks?id=Dq8SEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-263735-2.
Archived ([Link]
q8SEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1) from the original on 13 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Murawski, Roman (2004). "Mathematical Knowledge". In Niiniluoto, I.; Sintonen, Matti;
Wolenski, Jan (eds.). Handbook of Epistemology ([Link]
AAQBAJ). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-1986-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240712163703/[Link]
from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
O'Brien, Dan (2006). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge ([Link]
oks?id=TOQcebWMstwC&pg=PA77). Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-3316-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240801111252/[Link]
A77) from the original on 1 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Olsson, Erik J (2011). "The Value of Knowledge: The Value of Knowledge". Philosophy
Compass. 6 (12): 874–883. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00425.x ([Link]
j.1747-9991.2011.00425.x). S2CID 143034920 ([Link]
34920).
Olsson, Erik J. (2016). "Reliabilism" ([Link]
bo-9780195396577/[Link]). Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University
Press. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/display/document/obo-9780195396577/[Link]) from the original
on 7 August 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Oxford University Press (2024). "Epistemology" ([Link]
_n). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
O’Connor, Cailin; Goldberg, Sanford; Goldman, Alvin (2024). "Social Epistemology" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/epistemology-social/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
03004746/[Link] from the original on 3 May
1998. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
O′Donohue, William; Kitchener, Richard F. (1996). "Introduction" ([Link]
ks?id=T7uYSFSxxVkC&pg=PA2). In O′Donohue, William; Kitchener, Richard F. (eds.). The
Philosophy of Psychology. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-612-5. Archived ([Link]
web/20240712163705/[Link] from the
original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Palmquist, Stephen (2010). Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=NOKjGp7NHtUC&pg=PA800). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-
022623-2. Archived ([Link]
ooks?id=NOKjGp7NHtUC&pg=PA800) from the original on 5 July 2023. Retrieved 5 July 2023.
Pappas, George S. (1998). "Epistemology, History of" ([Link]
hematic/epistemology-history-of/v-1). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P018-1 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/epistemology-history-of/v-1) from the original on 15 July
2024. Retrieved 15 July 2024.
Pappas, George (2023). "Internalist Vs. Externalist Conceptions of Epistemic Justification" (htt
ps://[Link]/entries/justep-intext/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
05140348/[Link] from the original on 5 August 2019.
Retrieved 1 August 2024.
Pavese, Carlotta (2022). "Knowledge How" ([Link]
w/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived ([Link]
ntries/knowledge-how/) from the original on 25 November 2023. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
Payne, William Harold (2003). "Contributions to the Science of Education and The Education
of Teachers" ([Link] In Salvatori,
Mariolina Rizzi (ed.). Pedagogy: Disturbing History, 1820-1930. University of Pittsburgh Press.
ISBN 978-0-8229-7246-4. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=abocsyBzTMMC&pg=PA264) from the original on 23 April 2023.
Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Phillips, Stephen (1998). "Epistemology, Indian Schools of". Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy ([Link]
1/sections/mimamsa-self-certificationalism). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-F042-1
([Link] ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240802164157/[Link]
temology-indian-schools-of/v-1/sections/mimamsa-self-certificationalism) from the original on 2
August 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Phillips, Stephen (2024). "Gaṅgeśa" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
3 September 2024.
Phillips, Stephen; Vaidya, Anand (2024). "Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy" (https://
[Link]/entries/epistemology-india/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
04064203/[Link] from the original on 4
December 2022. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Pietersma, Henry (2000). Phenomenological Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-513190-1.
Plato (2002). Five Dialogues ([Link]
Hackett Pub. Co. pp. 89–90, 97b–98a ([Link]
89). ISBN 978-0-87220-633-5.
Popper, Karl (2014). "2. Deductivism and Inductivism" ([Link]
d9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31). The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge.
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-62683-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link] from the original on 17
August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Poston, Ted. "Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology" ([Link]
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link] from the original on 31 March 2023. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
Powell, Timothy (2020). The Value of Knowledge: The Economics of Enterprise Knowledge
and Intelligence ([Link] Walter de
Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-059304-4. Archived ([Link]
ps://[Link]/books?id=GYdnEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA132) from the original on 15 March
2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Prasad, Jwala (1987). History of Indian Epistemology. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
ISBN 978-81-215-0072-2.
Pritchard, Duncan (2004). "The Epistemology of Testimony" ([Link]
33). Philosophical Issues. 14: 326–348. doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00033.x ([Link]
10.1111%2Fj.1533-6077.2004.00033.x). ISSN 1533-6077 ([Link]
3-6077). JSTOR 3050633 ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240730082844/[Link] from the original on 30 July
2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Pritchard, Duncan (2005). Epistemic Luck ([Link]
8C&pg=PA1). Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-153566-6. Archived ([Link]
eb/20240816091509/[Link] from the
original on 16 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Pritchard, Duncan (2013). What Is This Thing Called Knowledge? ([Link]
ooks?id=sfUhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA11). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-57367-7. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20240816164948/[Link]
pg=PA11) from the original on 16 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Pritchard, Duncan; Turri, John; Carter, J. Adam (2022). "The Value of Knowledge" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/knowledge-value/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
10164703/[Link] from the original on 10 July
2022. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
Reed, Baron (2015). "Skepticism and Perception" ([Link]
QAAQBAJ&pg=PA75). In Matthen, Mohan (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of
Perception. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960047-2. Archived ([Link]
rg/web/20240731114913/[Link]
from the original on 31 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Reif, Frederick (2008). Applying Cognitive Science to Education: Thinking and Learning in
Scientific and Other Complex Domains ([Link]
g=PA33). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-18263-8. Archived ([Link]
15030023/[Link] from the original on
15 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
Rendsvig, Rasmus; Symons, John; Wang, Yanjing (2024). "Epistemic Logic" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/logic-epistemic/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
ps://[Link]/entries/logic-epistemic/) from the original on 30 March 2024. Retrieved
22 August 2024.
Rescher, Nicholas (1998). "Fallibilism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/fallibilism/v-1). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-
P019-1 ([Link] ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.
Archived ([Link]
s/thematic/fallibilism/v-1) from the original on 11 May 2024. Retrieved 31 July 2024.
Rescher, Nicholas (2005). Epistemic Logic: A Survey of the Logic of Knowledge ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=o7m3amAbDEsC&pg=PA1). University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-
0-8229-7092-7.
Rescher, Nicholas (2009). Unknowability: An Inquiry into the Limits of Knowledge. Lexington
books. ISBN 978-0-7391-3615-7.
Rescher, Nicholas (2009a). Ignorance: On the Wider Implications of Deficient Knowledge.
University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-6014-0.
Rockmore, Tom (2011). "Husserl's Phenomenological Epistemology". Kant and
Phenomenology. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-72340-2.
Rodríguez, Ángel García (2018). "Fake Barns and Our Epistemological Theorizing" ([Link]
org/10.22201%2Fiifs.18704905e.2018.02). Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía. 50
(148): 29–54. doi:10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2018.02 ([Link]
e.2018.02). ISSN 0011-1503 ([Link] JSTOR 26767766
([Link] S2CID 171635198 ([Link]
rpusID:171635198).
Rosenberg, Jay (2002). Thinking About Knowing ([Link]
AAQBAJ&pg=PA184). Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925133-9. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240726143520/[Link]
4) from the original on 26 July 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Rošker, Jana (2021). "Epistemology in Chinese Philosophy" ([Link]
chinese-epistemology/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2 September 2024.
Ruppert, Nikolai; Schlüter, Riske; Seide, Ansgar (2016). "Problems at the Basis of Susan
Haack's Foundherentism" ([Link]
In Göhner, Julia F.; Jung, Eva-Maria (eds.). Susan Haack: Reintegrating Philosophy. Springer.
ISBN 978-3-319-24969-8. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=nF2mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59) from the original on 1 August 2024.
Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Russell, Bruce (2020). "A Priori Justification and Knowledge" ([Link]
apriori/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived ([Link]
ntries/apriori/) from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
Russell, Gillian (2023). "Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" ([Link]
isplay/document/obo-9780195396577/[Link]). Oxford Bibliographies.
Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
Rysiew, Patrick (2021). "Naturalism in Epistemology" ([Link]
mology-naturalized/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/epistemology-naturalized/) from the original on 17 August 2022. Retrieved
2 August 2024.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023). "Metaethics" ([Link] The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived ([Link]
ethics/) from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
Scheler, Max; Stikkers, Kenneth W. (2012). Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge (Routledge
Revivals) ([Link] Routledge. p. 23.
ISBN 978-0-415-62334-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=pFqrO7Lxiw4C&pg=PA23) from the original on 7 March 2023.
Retrieved 7 March 2023.
Schmitt, Frederick F. (2004). "Epistemology and Cognitive Science". In Niiniluoto, I.; Sintonen,
Matti; Wolenski, Jan (eds.). Handbook of Epistemology ([Link]
gvlBwAAQBAJ). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-1986-9. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240712163703/[Link]
J) from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Schoenbaum, Thomas J. (2015). Keeping the Faith: Religious Belief in an Age of Science (http
s://[Link]/books?id=YeYyBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181). McFarland & Company.
ISBN 978-1-4766-1074-0. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=YeYyBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181) from the original on 20 July 2024.
Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2011). "Belief". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The
Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-88200-5.
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2024). "Belief" ([Link] The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20191115080001/[Link] from the
original on 15 November 2019. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
Scott, Julie F. (2002). "The Nature of Social Research and Social Knowledge" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=G8aOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT30). In Marsh, Ian (ed.). Theory and Practice in
Sociology. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-13-026553-1. Archived ([Link]
712163710/[Link] from the original
on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Segura, Jordi Vallverdú i (2009). "Computational Epistemology and e-Science: A New Way of
Thinking". Minds and Machines. 19 (4): 557–567. doi:10.1007/s11023-009-9168-0 ([Link]
org/10.1007%2Fs11023-009-9168-0).
Sethia, Tara (2004). Ahiṃsā, Anekānta and Jainism ([Link]
Kv8wBiYC&pg=PA93). Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4. Archived (htt
ps://[Link]/web/20240802164200/[Link]
C&pg=PA93) from the original on 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Sharpe, Matthew (2018). "The Demise of Grand Narratives? Postmodernism, Power-
knowledge, and Applied Epistemology". In Coady, David; Chase, James (eds.). The Routledge
Handbook of Applied Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-39314-6.
Shen, Vincent (2006). "Chinese Philosophy: Metaphysics and Epistemology". In Borchert,
Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([Link]
opedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chinese-philosophy-metaphysics-and-epistemology).
Vol. 2 (2 ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-865782-9.
Siderits, Mark (2021). Buddhism As Philosophy ([Link]
AQBAJ&pg=PA332). Hackett Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62466-983-5. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20240822130417/[Link]
2#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Siegel, Susanna; Silins, Nicholas; Matthen, Mohan (2014). "The Epistemology of Perception".
In Matthen, Mohan (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception. Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600472.013.040 ([Link]
F9780199600472.013.040).
Sierpinska, Anna; Lerman, Stephen (1996). "Epistemologies of Mathematics and of
Mathematics Education" ([Link]
International Handbook of Mathematics Education: Part 1. Springer Netherlands.
doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_23 ([Link]
ISBN 978-94-009-1465-0. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_23) from the original on 22 November 2023.
Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Silva, Paul; Oliveira, Luis R.G. (2022). "Introduction" ([Link]
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT10). Propositional and Doxastic Justification. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781003008101-1 ([Link] ISBN 978-1-
003-00810-1. Archived ([Link]
m/books?id=99FkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT10) from the original on 13 August 2024. Retrieved
15 August 2024.
Smith, Emmanuel (2023). "Doxastic Justification and Testimonial Beliefs". Episteme: 1–14.
doi:10.1017/epi.2023.49 ([Link]
Stairs, Allen (2017). A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion ([Link]
books?id=Km1QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA156). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-21981-5. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240726225734/[Link]
AJ&pg=PA156) from the original on 26 July 2024. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Stanley, Jason; Willlamson, Timothy (2001). "Knowing How" ([Link]
V). Journal of Philosophy. 98 (8): 411–444. doi:10.2307/2678403 ([Link]
678403). JSTOR 2678403 ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20220602215122/[Link] from the original on 2 June
2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
Steele, Katie; Stefánsson, H. Orri (2020). "Decision Theory" ([Link]
decision-theory/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/decision-theory/) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 20 July 2024.
Stehr, Nico; Adolf, Marian T. (2016). "The Price of Knowledge". Social Epistemology. 30 (5–6):
483–512. doi:10.1080/02691728.2016.1172366 ([Link]
72366).
Steup, Matthias; Neta, Ram (2020). "Epistemology" ([Link]
logy/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived ([Link]
emology/) from the original on 21 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
Steup, Matthias; Neta, Ram (2024). "Epistemology" ([Link]
logy/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived ([Link]
ntries/epistemology/) from the original on 21 July 2020. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
Stoltz, Jonathan (2021). Illuminating the Mind: An Introduction to Buddhist Epistemology (http
s://[Link]/books?id=pTkqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA120). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-090756-3. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=pTkqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA120) from the original on 3 March 2024.
Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Stroll, Avrum (2023). "Epistemology" ([Link]
Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/topic/epistemology) from the original on 10 July 2019. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
Sturm, Thomas (2011). "Historical Epistemology or History of Epistemology? The Case of the
Relation Between Perception and Judgment: Dedicated to Günther Patzig on His 85th
Birthday". Erkenntnis. 75 (3). doi:10.1007/s10670-011-9338-3 ([Link]
670-011-9338-3).
Sudduth, Michael. "Defeaters in Epistemology" ([Link]
y/). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
48/[Link] from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved
17 May 2022.
Tanesini, Alessandra (2017). "Social Epistemology" ([Link]
matic/social-epistemology/v-2). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/0123456789-P046-2 ([Link] ISBN 978-
0-415-25069-6. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/articles/thematic/social-epistemology/v-2) from the original on 29 March 2024.
Retrieved 29 July 2024.
Thorpe, Lucas (2014). The Kant Dictionary ([Link]
BAJ&pg=PA5). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-2248-3.
Tieszen, Richard L. (2005). Phenomenology, Logic, and the Philosophy of Mathematics (http
s://[Link]/books?id=2fgQ_fuCcKAC&pg=PA175). Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-83782-8. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=2fgQ_fuCcKAC&pg=PA175) from the original on 31 July 2024.
Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Titelbaum, Michael G. (2022). Fundamentals of Bayesian Epistemology 1: Introducing
Credences ([Link] Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-870760-8. Archived ([Link]
s://[Link]/books?id=AiFnEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the
original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.
Tramel, Peter (2008). "Haack's Foundherentism Is a Foundationalism". Synthese. 160 (2):
215–228. doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9108-y ([Link]
Truncellito, David A. "Epistemology" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
mo/) from the original on 13 January 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
Tufari, P. (2003). "Knowledge, Sociology of". New Catholic Encyclopedia ([Link]
com/books?id=4C0KAQAAMAAJ). Thomson/Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-4008-8. Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20240201125118/[Link]
from the original on 1 February 2024. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
Vagelli, Matteo (2019). "Historical Epistemology and the 'Marriage' Between History and
Philosophy of Science" ([Link] In
Herring, Emily; Jones, Kevin; Kiprijanov, Konstantin; Sellers, Laura (eds.). The Past, Present,
and Future of Integrated History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-
21481-0. Archived ([Link]
oks?id=hT33DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the original on 22 August
2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Vahid, Hamid. "Doxastic Conservatism" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/doxastic-conservatism/) from the original on 2 August 2024. Retrieved 2 August
2024.
Vaidya, Anand Jayprakash; Wallner, Michael (2021). "The Epistemology of Modality and the
Problem of Modal Epistemic Friction" ([Link]
5). Synthese. 198 (S8): 1909–1935. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-1860-2 ([Link]
2Fs11229-018-1860-2). PMC 8549955 ([Link]
5). PMID 34720230 ([Link]
Van Inwagen, Peter; Sullivan, Meghan; Bernstein, Sara (2023). "Metaphysics" ([Link]
[Link]/entries/metaphysics/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
ps://[Link]/entries/metaphysics/) from the original on 16 September 2018.
Retrieved 17 March 2024.
Vassilopoulou, P.; Clark, S. (2009). Late Antique Epistemology: Other Ways to Truth ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=bI59DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA303). Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-24077-3.
Archived ([Link]
59DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA303) from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Vermeir, Koen (2013). "Philosophy and Genealogy: Ways of Writing History of Philosophy" (htt
ps://[Link]/books?id=hKqCD5U_ba8C&pg=PA65). In Laerke, Mogens; Smith,
Justin E. H.; Schliesser, Eric (eds.). Philosophy and Its History: Aims and Methods in the Study
of Early Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985714-2. Archived (http
s://[Link]/web/20240729162032/[Link]
C&pg=PA65) from the original on 29 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Vogt, Katja Maria (2011). "The Aims of Skeptical Investigation" ([Link]
s?id=4s-X8wfhemsC&pg=PA44). In Machuca, Diego E. (ed.). Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern,
and Contemporary Philosophy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-007-1991-0.
Archived ([Link]
s-X8wfhemsC&pg=PA44) from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
Walton, Douglas N. (2005). "Pragmatic and Idealized Models of Knowledge and Ignorance".
American Philosophical Quarterly. 42 (1): 59–69 [59, 64]. JSTOR 20010182 ([Link]
org/stable/20010182).
Warder, Anthony Kennedy (1998). A Course in Indian Philosophy (2 ed.). Motilal Banarsidass
Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-1482-0.
 Warren, Jared (2020). Shadows of Syntax: Revitalizing Logical and Mathematical
Conventionalism ([Link]
2). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-008615-2. Archived ([Link]
0240528232725/[Link]
2) from the original on 28 May 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Watkins, Chris; Mortimore, Peter (1999). "Pedagogy: What Do We Know?". Understanding
Pedagogy and Its Impact on Learning ([Link]
-and-its-impact-on-learning/[Link]). Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446219454 ([Link]
5%2F9781446219454). ISBN 978-1-85396-453-4. Archived ([Link]
0712120304/[Link]
g/[Link]) from the original on 12 July 2022. Retrieved 24 July 2024.
Webb, Mark Owen. "Jain Philosophy" ([Link] Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
from the original on 28 May 2010. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Wheeler, Gregory R.; Pereira, Luís Moniz (2004). "Epistemology and Artificial Intelligence".
Journal of Applied Logic. 2 (4): 469–493. doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.07.007 ([Link]
6%[Link].2004.07.007).
Whitcomb, Dennis (2011). "Wisdom". In Bernecker, Sven; Pritchard, Duncan (eds.). The
Routledge Companion to Epistemology ([Link]
(0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839065 ([Link]
ISBN 978-1-136-88201-2.
Wilson, Fred (2008). The External World and Our Knowledge of It: Hume's Critical Realism, an
Exposition and a Defence ([Link]
University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9764-4. Archived ([Link]
0240818112748/[Link] from the
original on 18 August 2024. Retrieved 19 August 2024.
Wilson, Robert A. (2023). "Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind" ([Link]
[Link]/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0352.x
ml). Oxford Bibliographies. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-035
[Link]) from the original on 10 April 2023. Retrieved 11 August 2024.
Windt, Jennifer M. (2021). "Dreams and Dreaming" ([Link]
reaming/#CartDreaSkep). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/entries/dreams-dreaming/#CartDreaSkep) from the original on 1 February 2024.
Retrieved 12 December 2023.
Wolenski, Jan (2004). "History of Epistemology". In Niiniluoto, I.; Sintonen, Matti; Wolenski,
Jan (eds.). Handbook of Epistemology ([Link]
Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-1986-9. Archived ([Link]
rg/web/20240712163703/[Link] from the
original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
Wrenn, Chase B. "Naturalistic Epistemology" ([Link] Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/nat-epis/) from the original on 16 July 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.
Zagzebski, Linda (1999). "What Is Knowledge?" ([Link] In
Greco, John; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Blackwell. pp. 92–
116. doi:10.1002/9781405164863.ch3 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-631-20290-5. OCLC 39269507 ([Link]
S2CID 158886670 ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20220602215147/[Link] from the original on 2
June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.

External links
Retrieved from "[Link]