Much moral skepticism stems from the charge that moral facts do not figure in causal explanations. However, philosophers committed to normative epistemological discourse (by which I mean our practice of evaluating beliefs as justified or unjustified, and so forth) are in no position to demand that normative facts serve such a role, since epistemic facts are causally impotent as well. I argue in...

There are many pragmatisms, and it is a little misleading to present this variegated trend of thought as if were monolithic doctrine. The founding fathers, too, all but unanimous. Peirce was not in agreement with James on issues. Dewey, turn, did like various aspects both Peirce’s James’ philosophy, while C.I. Lewis’ views logic quite different from those held by Dewey. It should be surprising,...