Any Good Epistemology Papers from 2007?

The Philosopher’s Annual (whose apparent demise I reported here) appears to be coming back, and is looking for nominations of philosophy papers first published in 2007. I’m on the nominating board, and am especially interested in looking for good papers in epistemology, because I’m best positioned to evaluate papers in that area. If you know of very good epistemology papers that came out in ’07, suggest them in the comments (or e-mail me), and I’ll add them to my list of papers to look at before submitting my nominations.


Any Good Epistemology Papers from 2007? — 6 Comments

  1. I think that some of the papers that stand out are:
    “Reflection and Disagreement” by Adam Elga (Nous)
    “Lottery Puzzle and the Nature of Belief” by Chris Hill and Joshua Schechter (Phil Issues)
    “On the Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology” by Jeremy Fantl and Matthew McGrath (PPR)
    “Knowing the Answer” by Jonathan Schaffer (PPR)
    “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News” by David Christensen (Phil Review)
    “The Place of Truth in Epistemology” by Ernest Sosa (in an anthology on virtue epistemology)
    This list is obviously reflective of my personal interests in epistemology…

  2. Keith, the most interesting paper I read in epistemology from 2007 was Jim Joyce’s piece from the Proc. of the Arist. Soc. called (something like) “Epistemic Deference: The Case of Chance”. It ties together some issues about deferring to chance with issues about the epistemic significance of disagreement. Great stuff.

    Can’t claim to have had a good or responsible year of keeping up with the literature, though…

  3. Thanks for the good suggestions so far. I should make clear that I’m just looking for suggestions. If you know of epistemology papers that came out in ’07 that are really good — good enough, say, that you wouldn’t be all that surprised if they ended up being named among the top 10 papers in philosophy for the year — then please suggest them for consideration. Doing so doesn’t mean you think the papers you suggest should be ultimately picked as winners. Whether they should be picked as winners would depend on what the competition is — and few of us have kept up with the philosophical literature of 2007 to be able to judge such matters. This is just the stage of gathering plausible candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *