What is it about?
A quite technical way to make a case for the claim that beliefs grounded on apparently good reasons can be epistemically weaker than beliefs or belief-like states that seem to be grounded on no reason at all. To the conclusion that intuitive thinking can lead to better outcomes than reflective reasoning.
Featured Image
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Opacity, Transparency, and the Paradox of the Accessibility Requirement, The Philosophical Forum, April 2015, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/phil.12063.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
