It can be inferred from the passage that a strict advocate of Cartesian foundationalism would most likely raise which of the following objections to reliabilism?

Reliabilism fails to recognize that young children and animals possess cognitive faculties comparable to those of adult humans.

Reliabilism cannot adequately explain the causal etiology of beliefs formed through sensory perception.

Reliabilism relies on an infinite regress of justification to defend the reliability of its cognitive processes.

Reliabilism mistakenly grants justificatory status to beliefs held by individuals who cannot logically demonstrate why their beliefs are true.

The author mentions the "intuitive knowledge possessed by young children and animals" in the second paragraph primarily in order to

highlight a practical scenario that reveals a fundamental limitation of traditional internalist theories.

provide an example of "reflective knowledge" as defined by contemporary epistemologists.

argue that cognitive processes cannot be considered reliable unless they are completely independent of subjective awareness.

demonstrate that externalist theories are uniquely vulnerable to skeptical challenges regarding sensory perception.

According to the bifurcated framework discussed in the final paragraph, which of the following is an accurate description of "reflective knowledge"?

It requires the believer to possess a belief that is reliably formed, even if they lack higher-order awareness of its epistemic pedigree.

It necessitates that the believer possess both a reliably formed belief and a subjective understanding of the reliability of the cognitive faculties that produced it.

It rejects the internalist demand for intellectual responsibility in favor of pragmatic cognitive functioning.

It is an objective form of knowledge that effortlessly accommodates the epistemic capacities of entities lacking metacognition.

Based on the bifurcated framework described in the final paragraph, which of the following would qualify as animal knowledge but NOT as reflective knowledge?

A student solves a geometry problem correctly and can explain why each step of the method used is sound.

A traveller glances at a stopped clock that happens to show the right time and concludes that it is noon.

A chemist trusts a carefully calibrated instrument whose reading, unknown to the chemist, is wrong.

A dog reliably recognises its owner's footsteps and correctly runs to the door whenever the owner arrives.

The criticism of pure reliabilism mentioned in the final paragraph is most likely that reliabilism

treats any reliably produced true belief as knowledge, leaving no place for the intellectual responsibility that comes from reflecting on one's own faculties.

sets so demanding a standard for justification that young children and animals are denied knowledge.

cannot explain why sensory perception yields a high ratio of true to false beliefs.

falls into an infinite regress by demanding justification for every justification.

🎓 Free mentorship — Join our community →🎓 Free mentorship — Join our community →🎓 Free mentorship — Join our community →🎓 Free mentorship — Join our community →

←

The Bifurcation of Epistemic Justification

DAILY RC

SectionVerbal Ability · RC

Time Spent: 00:00

This Question: 00:00

Question No. 1+4 −1MCQ Single Answer

Reading Passage

Traditional epistemology has long been dominated by the internalist perspective, which posits that the justificatory status of a person's belief is determined entirely by factors internal to the believer's cognitive perspective. Rooted in Cartesian foundationalism, this paradigm dictates that for a belief to be justified, the subject must possess cognitive access to the grounds of that justification. Consequently, internalism places a heavy burden on reflective awareness; it mandates that agents not only hold true beliefs but also be capable of articulating the logical or empirical warrant underpinning them. This stringent requirement, however, renders internalism vulnerable to skeptical challenges, as the infinite regress of demanding justification for one's justifications often leaves fundamental beliefs—such as the reliability of sensory perception—without a strictly internal anchor. In response to the perceived paralyzing constraints of internalist frameworks, externalist theories, most notably reliabilism, have gained substantial traction. Reliabilists argue that a belief is justified if and only if it is the product of a reliable cognitive process—one that yields a high ratio of true to false beliefs—regardless of whether the believer is subjectively aware of the process's reliability. From an externalist standpoint, a subject can possess justified knowledge about the physical world even if they cannot dialectically defend their sensory faculties against skeptical hypotheses. By shifting the locus of justification from subjective reflective access to objective causal etiology, externalism effortlessly accommodates the intuitive knowledge possessed by young children and animals, entities that lack the metacognitive capacity required by traditional internalism. Nevertheless, critics of pure reliabilism argue that it conflates mere true belief with genuine epistemic virtue. To bridge the chasm between these paradigms, some contemporary epistemologists advocate for a bifurcated framework distinguishing between "animal knowledge" and "reflective knowledge." Animal knowledge aligns with the externalist criteria, requiring only that a belief be reliably formed and true, thus satisfying the pragmatic demands of daily cognitive functioning. Reflective knowledge, conversely, entails a higher-order awareness of the reliability of one's own faculties, thereby satisfying the internalist demand for intellectual responsibility. By synthesizing the objective etiology of belief formation with the subjective awareness of its epistemic pedigree, this dual-aspect theory mitigates the stark absolutism inherent in both orthodox internalism and uncompromising externalism.

The primary purpose of the passage is to