It's a great paper! But I don't completely agree with your view. My deepest disagreement is that, in my opinion, your view is still too close to the standard conception. In my judgment, the standard conception is mistaken at a more fundamental level: fundamentally, it's a kind of foundationalism, which I believe to be ultimately indefensible, and so it needs to be replaced with a more radically different conception of rational inference.
Thanks, Ralph! You may well be right that my view isn't radical enough—although the problems I raise here don't turn on foundationalism. Would love to talk about it more sometime.
Would love to be able to read it.
Great :) It's archived here: https://philpapers.org/rec/MALGAA-3. // A-S
Thank you! I've just downloaded it.
It's a great paper! But I don't completely agree with your view. My deepest disagreement is that, in my opinion, your view is still too close to the standard conception. In my judgment, the standard conception is mistaken at a more fundamental level: fundamentally, it's a kind of foundationalism, which I believe to be ultimately indefensible, and so it needs to be replaced with a more radically different conception of rational inference.
Thanks, Ralph! You may well be right that my view isn't radical enough—although the problems I raise here don't turn on foundationalism. Would love to talk about it more sometime.