Warrant: The Current Debate
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2016) |
 | |
| Author | Alvin Plantinga |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Epistemology |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Publication date | 1993 |
| Pages | 228 |
| ISBN | 978-0-19-507862-6 |
| 121/.6 | |
| LC Class | BD161 .P58 |
| Followed by | Warrant and Proper Function |
Warrant: The Current Debate is the first in a trilogy of books written by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga on epistemology. Plantinga introduces, analyzes, and criticizes 20th-century developments in analytic epistemology, particularly the works of Roderick Chisholm, Laurence BonJour, William Alston, Alvin Goldman, and others.[1] In the 1993 book, Plantinga argues specifically that the theories of what he calls "warrant" – what many others have called justification (Plantinga draws out a difference: justification is a property of a person holding a belief while warrant is a property of a belief) – put forth by these epistemologists have systematically failed to capture in full what is required for knowledge.[2]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Plantinga 1993.
- ^ Plantinga 1993, p. 3.
Bibliography[edit]
- Plantinga, Alvin (1993). Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.
 | This article about epistemology is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This article about a philosophy-related book is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |