Abstract

This is an attempt of a partial defence of Alvin I. Goldman's account of justification against the following kinds of criticism: a criticism on the sufficiency of Goldman's account; a criticism on the necessity of Goldman's account; a criticism on the capability of answering a certain kind of skepticism; and an expected criticism on the capability of determining the reliability of psychological processes without falling into circularity. While attempting to defend Goldman's account of justification, I tried to see what is true to Goldman's account. In so doing, I found out that some of the criticisms mentioned above do not apply to Goldman's account of justification. It would be good to see the blooming of Goldman's account if the blooming can contribute to the field of epistemology in an unprecedented way.