Hubbry Logo
Internalism and externalismInternalism and externalismMain
Open search
Internalism and externalism
Community hub
Internalism and externalism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Internalism and externalism
Internalism and externalism
Internalism and externalism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Internalism and externalism are two opposite ways of integrating and explaining various subjects in several areas of philosophy. These include human motivation, knowledge, justification, meaning, and truth. The distinction arises in many areas of debate with similar but distinct meanings. Internal–external distinction is a distinction used in philosophy to divide an ontology into two parts: an internal part concerning observation related to philosophy, and an external part concerning question related to philosophy.

Internalism is the thesis that no fact about the world can provide reasons for action independently of desires and beliefs.[1] Externalism is the thesis that reasons are to be identified with objective features of the world.[1]

Moral philosophy

[edit]

Motivation

[edit]

In contemporary moral philosophy, motivational internalism (or moral internalism) is the view that moral convictions (which are not necessarily beliefs, e.g. feelings of moral approval or disapproval) are intrinsically motivating. That is, the motivational internalist believes that there is an internal, necessary connection between one's conviction that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X. Conversely, the motivational externalist (or moral externalist) claims that there is no necessary internal connection between moral convictions and moral motives.[2] That is, there is no necessary connection between the conviction that X is wrong and the motivational drive not to do X. (The use of these terms has roots in W.D. Falk's (1947) paper "'Ought' and Motivation".[3])

These views in moral psychology have various implications. In particular, if motivational internalism is true, then amorality is unintelligible (and metaphysically impossible). An amoralist is not simply someone who is immoral, rather it is someone who knows what the moral things to do are, yet is not motivated to do them. Such an agent is unintelligible to the motivational internalist, because moral judgments about the right thing to do have built into them corresponding motivations to do those things that are judged by the agent to be the moral things to do. On the other hand, an amoralist is entirely intelligible to the motivational externalist, because the motivational externalist thinks that moral judgments about what is right do not necessitate some motivation to do those things that are judged to be the right thing to do; rather, an independent desire—such as the desire to do the right thing—is required (Brink, 2003[4]), (Rosati, 2006[5]).

Reasons

[edit]

There is also a distinction in ethics and action theory, largely made popular by Bernard Williams (1979, reprinted in 1981),[2] concerning internal and external reasons for an action. An internal reason is, roughly, something that one has in light of one's own "subjective motivational set"—one's own commitments, desires (or wants), goals, etc. On the other hand, an external reason is something that one has independent of one's subjective motivational set. For example, suppose that Sally is going to drink a glass of poison, because she wants to commit suicide and believes that she can do so by drinking the poison. Sally has an internal reason to drink the poison, because she wants to commit suicide. However, one might say that she has an external reason not to drink the poison because, even though she wants to die, one ought not to kill oneself no matter what—regardless of whether one wants to die.

Some philosophers embrace the existence of both kinds of reason, while others deny the existence of one or the other. For example, Bernard Williams (1981)[2] argues that there are really only internal reasons for action. Such a view is called internalism about reasons (or reasons internalism). Externalism about reasons (or reasons externalism) is the denial of reasons internalism.[6] It is the view that there are external reasons for action; that is, there are reasons for action that one can have even if the action is not part of one's subjective motivational set.

Consider the following situation. Suppose that it's against the moral law to steal from the poor, and Sasha knows this. However, Sasha doesn't desire to follow the moral law, and there is currently a poor person next to him. Is it intelligible to say that Sasha has a reason to follow the moral law right now (to not steal from the poor person next to him), even though he doesn't care to do so? The reasons externalist answers in the affirmative ("Yes, Sasha has a reason not to steal from that poor person."), since he believes that one can have reasons for action even if one does not have the relevant desire. Conversely, the reasons internalist answers the question in the negative ("No, Sasha does not have a reason not to steal from that poor person, though others might."). The reasons internalist claims that external reasons are unintelligible; one has a reason for action only if one has the relevant desire (that is, only internal reasons can be reasons for action). The reasons internalist claims the following: the moral facts are a reason for Sasha's action not to steal from the poor person next to him only if he currently wants to follow the moral law (or if not stealing from the poor person is a way to satisfy his other current goals—that is, part of what Williams calls his "subjective motivational set"). In short, the reasoning behind reasons internalism, according to Williams,[2] is that reasons for action must be able to explain one's action; and only internal reasons can do this.

Epistemology

[edit]

Justification

[edit]

Internalism

[edit]

Two main varieties of epistemic internalism about justification are access internalism and ontological internalism. Access internalists require that a believer must have internal access to the justifier(s) of their belief p in order to be justified in believing p. For the access internalist, justification amounts to something like the believer being aware (or capable of being aware) of certain facts that make her belief in p rational, or them being able to give reasons for her belief in p. At minimum, access internalism requires that the believer have some kind of reflective access or awareness to whatever justifies her belief. Ontological internalism is the view that justification for a belief is established by one's mental states. Ontological internalism can be distinct from access internalism, but the two are often thought to go together since we are generally considered to be capable of having reflective access to mental states.[7]

One popular argument for internalism is known as the 'new evil demon problem'. The new evil demon problem indirectly supports internalism by challenging externalist views of justification, particularly reliabilism. The argument asks us to imagine a subject with beliefs and experiences identical to ours, but the subject is being systematically deceived by a malicious Cartesian demon so that all their beliefs turn out false. In spite of the subject's unfortunate deception, the argument goes, we do not think this subject ceases to be rational in taking things to be as they appear as we do. After all, it is possible that we could be radically deceived in the same way, yet we are still justified in holding most of our beliefs in spite of this possibility. Since reliabilism maintains that one's beliefs are justified via reliable belief-forming processes (where reliable means yielding true beliefs), the subject in the evil demon scenario would not likely have any justified beliefs according to reliabilism because all of their beliefs would be false. Since this result is supposed to clash with our intuitions that the subject is justified in their beliefs in spite of being systematically deceived, some take the new evil demon problem as a reason for rejecting externalist views of justification.[8]

Externalism

[edit]

Externalist views of justification emerged in epistemology during the late 20th century. Externalist conceptions of justification assert that facts external to the believer can serve as the justification for a belief. According to the externalist, a believer need not have any internal access or cognitive grasp of any reasons or facts which make their belief justified.[9] The externalist's assessment of justification can be contrasted with access internalism, which demands that the believer have internal reflective access to reasons or facts which corroborate their belief in order to be justified in holding it. Externalism, on the other hand, maintains that the justification for someone's belief can come from facts that are entirely external to the agent's subjective awareness.[7]

Alvin Goldman, one of the most well-known proponents of externalism in epistemology, is known for developing a popular form of externalism called reliabilism. In his paper, “What is Justified Belief?” Goldman characterizes the reliabilist conception of justification as such:

"If S’s believing p at t results from a reliable cognitive belief-forming process (or set of processes), then S’s belief in p at t is justified.[10]”

Goldman notes that a reliable belief-forming process is one which generally produces true beliefs.[10]

A unique consequence of reliabilism (and other forms of externalism) is that one can have a justified belief without knowing one is justified (this is not possible under most forms of epistemic internalism). In addition, we do not yet know which cognitive processes are in fact reliable, so anyone who embraces reliabilism must concede that we do not always know whether some of our beliefs are justified (even though there is a fact of the matter).[10]

As a response to skepticism

[edit]

In responding to skepticism, Hilary Putnam (1982[11]) claims that semantic externalism yields "an argument we can give that shows we are not brains in a vat (BIV). (See also DeRose, 1999.[12]) If semantic externalism is true, then the meaning of a word or sentence is not wholly determined by what individuals think those words mean. For example, semantic externalists maintain that the word "water" referred to the substance whose chemical composition is H2O even before scientists had discovered that chemical composition. The fact that the substance out in the world we were calling "water" actually had that composition at least partially determined the meaning of the word. One way to use this in a response to skepticism is to apply the same strategy to the terms used in a skeptical argument in the following way (DeRose, 1999[12]):

Either I am a BIV, or I am not a BIV.

If I am not a BIV, then when I say "I am not a BIV", it is true.
If I am a BIV, then, when I say "I am not a BIV", it is true (because "brain" and "vat" would only pick out the brains and vats being simulated, not real brains and real vats).
---

My utterance of "I am not a BIV" is true.

To clarify how this argument is supposed to work: Imagine that there is brain in a vat, and a whole world is being simulated for it. Call the individual who is being deceived "Steve." When Steve is given an experience of walking through a park, semantic externalism allows for his thought, "I am walking through a park" to be true so long as the simulated reality is one in which he is walking through a park. Similarly, what it takes for his thought, "I am a brain in a vat," to be true is for the simulated reality to be one where he is a brain in a vat. But in the simulated reality, he is not a brain in a vat.

Apart from disputes over the success of the argument or the plausibility of the specific type of semantic externalism required for it to work, there is question as to what is gained by defeating the skeptical worry with this strategy. Skeptics can give new skeptical cases that wouldn't be subject to the same response (e.g., one where the person was very recently turned into a brain in a vat, so that their words "brain" and "vat" still pick out real brains and vats, rather than simulated ones). Further, if even brains in vats can correctly believe "I am not a brain in a vat," then the skeptic can still press us on how we know we are not in that situation (though the externalist will point out that it may be difficult for the skeptic to describe that situation).

Another attempt to use externalism to refute skepticism is done by Brueckner[13] and Warfield.[14] It involves the claim that our thoughts are about things, unlike a BIV's thoughts, which cannot be about things (DeRose, 1999[12]).

Semantics

[edit]

Semantic externalism comes in two varieties, depending on whether meaning is construed cognitively or linguistically. On a cognitive construal, externalism is the thesis that what concepts (or contents) are available to a thinker is determined by their environment, or their relation to their environment. On a linguistic construal, externalism is the thesis that the meaning of a word is environmentally determined. Likewise, one can construe semantic internalism in two ways, as a denial of either of these two theses.

Externalism and internalism in semantics is closely tied to the distinction in philosophy of mind concerning mental content, since the contents of one's thoughts (specifically, intentional mental states) are usually taken to be semantic objects that are truth-evaluable.

See also:

Philosophy of mind

[edit]

Within the context of the philosophy of mind, externalism is the theory that the contents of at least some of one's mental states are dependent in part on their relationship to the external world or one's environment.

The traditional discussion on externalism was centered around the semantic aspect of mental content. This is by no means the only meaning of externalism now. Externalism is now a broad collection of philosophical views considering all aspects of mental content and activity. There are various forms of externalism that consider either the content or the vehicles of the mind or both. Furthermore, externalism could be limited to cognition, or it could address broader issues of consciousness.

As to the traditional discussion on semantic externalism (often dubbed content externalism), some mental states, such as believing that water is wet, and fearing that the Queen has been insulted, have contents we can capture using 'that' clauses. The content externalist often appeal to observations found as early as Hilary Putnam's seminal essay, "The Meaning of 'Meaning'," (1975).[11] Putnam stated that we can easily imagine pairs of individuals that are microphysical duplicates embedded in different surroundings who use the same words but mean different things when using them.

For example, suppose that Ike and Tina's mothers are identical twins and that Ike and Tina are raised in isolation from one another in indistinguishable environments. When Ike says, "I want my mommy," he expresses a want satisfied only if he is brought to his mommy. If we brought Tina's mommy, Ike might not notice the difference, but he doesn't get what he wants. It seems that what he wants and what he says when he says, "I want my mommy," will be different from what Tina wants and what she says she wants when she says, "I want my mommy."

Externalists say that if we assume competent speakers know what they think, and say what they think, the difference in what these two speakers mean corresponds to a difference in the thoughts of the two speakers that is not (necessarily) reflected by a difference in the internal make up of the speakers or thinkers. They urge us to move from externalism about meaning of the sort Putnam defended to externalism about contentful states of mind. The example pertains to singular terms, but has been extended to cover kind terms as well such as natural kinds (e.g., 'water') and for kinds of artifacts (e.g., 'espresso maker'). There is no general agreement amongst content externalists as to the scope of the thesis.

Philosophers now tend to distinguish between wide content (externalist mental content) and narrow content (anti-externalist mental content). Some, then, align themselves as endorsing one view of content exclusively, or both. For example, Jerry Fodor (1980[15]) argues for narrow content (although he comes to reject that view in his 1995), while David Chalmers (2002)[16] argues for a two dimensional semantics according to which the contents of mental states can have both wide and narrow content.

Critics of the view have questioned the original thought experiments saying that the lessons that Putnam and later writers such as Tyler Burge (1979,[17] 1982[18]) have urged us to draw can be resisted. Frank Jackson and John Searle, for example, have defended internalist accounts of thought content according to which the contents of our thoughts are fixed by descriptions that pick out the individuals and kinds that our thoughts intuitively pertain to the sorts of things that we take them to. In the Ike/Tina example, one might agree that Ike's thoughts pertain to Ike's mother and that Tina's thoughts pertain to Tina's but insist that this is because Ike thinks of that woman as his mother and we can capture this by saying that he thinks of her as 'the mother of the speaker'. This descriptive phrase will pick out one unique woman. Externalists claim this is implausible, as we would have to ascribe to Ike knowledge he wouldn't need to successfully think about or refer to his mother.

Critics have also claimed that content externalists are committed to epistemological absurdities. Suppose that a speaker can have the concept of water we do only if the speaker lives in a world that contains H2O. It seems this speaker could know a priori that they think that water is wet. This is the thesis of privileged access. It also seems that they could know on the basis of simple thought experiments that they can only think that water is wet if they live in a world that contains water. What would prevent her from putting these together and coming to know a priori that the world contains water? If we should say that no one could possibly know whether water exists a priori, it seems either we cannot know content externalism to be true on the basis of thought experiments or we cannot know what we are thinking without first looking into the world to see what it is like.

As mentioned, content externalism (limited to the semantic aspects) is only one among many other options offered by externalism by and large.

See also:

Historiography of science

[edit]
See also: Rational reconstruction

Internalism in the historiography of science claims that science is completely distinct from social influences and pure natural science can exist in any society and at any time given the intellectual capacity.[19] Imre Lakatos is a notable proponent of historiographical internalism.[20]

Externalism in the historiography of science is the view that the history of science is due to its social context – the socio-political climate and the surrounding economy determines scientific progress.[19] Thomas Kuhn is a notable proponent of historiographical externalism.[21]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Internalism and externalism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Internalism and externalism constitute the primary divide in contemporary over the conditions for epistemic justification, the normative status that elevates true belief to by ensuring a reliable connection to truth. Internalism asserts that justification requires factors internal to the subject—mental states or reasons accessible through reflection or —such that the subject can evaluate and potentially articulate the basis for their belief. Externalism rejects this requirement, contending that justification can arise from external relations, including the causal reliability of belief-forming processes, even if the subject lacks access to those relations. The internalism-externalism debate hinges on whether epistemic evaluation demands a first-person perspective centered on the subject's reflective of supporting factors, or permits third-person assessments of causal in producing true . Proponents of internalism, including and Laurence BonJour, argue that justification entails epistemic responsibility: subjects should be blamable for holding without internally accessible reasons, aligning justification with deontic norms of rational guidance and self-regulation. Externalists such as and counter that internalist demands overintellectualize ordinary , as cases like reliable or yield justification through external reliability without necessitating reflective endorsement, thereby better capturing the causal mechanisms linking to reality. This longstanding controversy has spurred influential theories, with externalism underpinning —where justification tracks the truth-ratio of processes—and internalism bolstering , which ties justification to the total mentally available to the subject. No consensus prevails, as hybrid views incorporating no-defeater conditions (absence of reflective of undermining factors) attempt to reconcile the positions, though debates persist over whether such concessions suffice for a truth-conducive .

Epistemology

Justification

In epistemology, the internalism-externalism debate concerning justification centers on whether the justificatory status of a belief depends solely on factors internal to the believer's mind or can involve external relations to the world. Internalists maintain that justification is determined by elements accessible to the subject, such as reasons, , or mental states that the believer can reflect upon or become aware of through . This view aligns with the that epistemic responsibility requires personal access to one's grounds for , implying that a subject ought to believe only what they can endorse based on their own cognitive perspective. Access internalism, a prominent variant, posits that a belief is justified only if the subject has access—either actual or potential via reflection—to the facts or reasons that support it. For instance, under this framework, inferential beliefs require awareness of the premises, and perceptual beliefs demand conscious apprehension of supporting experiences. , another internalist position, holds that justification supervenes entirely on the subject's mental states, though not necessarily requiring immediate access; it emphasizes that external factors cannot alter justificatory status without changing internal mentality. Critics of argue it permits "brain-in-a-vat" scenarios where identical mental duplicates yield identical justification despite differing reliability, challenging intuitions about truth-conduciveness. Externalists, conversely, contend that justification can derive from external properties, such as the reliability of the belief-forming process, independent of the subject's awareness. Process , advanced by in 1979, asserts that a is justified if produced by a cognitive process with a high truth-ratio across normal circumstances, even if the subject lacks insight into that reliability. This approach accommodates cases like basic perceptual in animals or infants, where internal access is absent yet beliefs track truth effectively. Externalism avoids in justification by not demanding reflective endorsement at every level, allowing foundational reliability to ground higher-order beliefs. Proponents of internalism counter externalism with thought experiments like the "new evil demon" case, where a demon ensures reliable true beliefs indistinguishable internally from unreliable ones; internalists claim both subjects have equal justification, undermining reliability as sufficient. Externalists respond that such cases involve misleading environments where processes fail reliability counterfactuals, preserving the theory, or appeal to safety and sensitivity conditions to exclude them. Empirical considerations, including studies on implicit biases in cognition, suggest that much human justification operates below conscious access, bolstering externalism's explanatory power over introspectively limited internalism. The debate persists without consensus, as hybrid views—combining internal access for rationality with external reliability for warrant—emerge to reconcile intuitions.

Knowledge

Internalist conceptions of knowledge require that a subject's true be supported by factors to which the subject has or reflective access, ensuring that the epistemic status depends solely on internal mental states. This view aligns with traditional analyses where is justified true (JTB), and justification demands the subject's awareness of sufficient evidential grounds, such as reasons or that can be mentally surveyed. For instance, if a subject believes a without the capacity to access or articulate the justifying basis, internalists deny obtains, even if the belief is true and non-accidentally so. Externalist theories of knowledge, by contrast, decouple from such internal accessibility requirements, positing instead that true beliefs qualify as when produced by cognitive processes that reliably yield truth, irrespective of the subject's of that reliability. Alvin Goldman's process reliabilism, introduced in his 1979 paper "What is Justified Belief?", defines justification—and thus contributes to —as arising from belief-forming mechanisms with a high propensity for truth across possible circumstances, such as under normal conditions. This externalist framework addresses Gettier-style counterexamples to JTB by emphasizing causal reliability over internal coherence; a belief formed via a generally reliable process (e.g., vision in standard environments) counts as if true, without needing the subject to verify the process's track record. Critics of externalism argue it permits knowledge attributions in cases of epistemic luck, such as a subject who forms a true belief through a process reliable only in the actual world but not counterfactually (e.g., "fake barn" scenarios), undermining the intuitive demand for the subject's cognitive agency in warranting the belief. Internalists counter that without internal justification, externalist accounts conflate mere true opinion with knowledge, potentially licensing animal or infant cognition as paradigmatic cases despite lacking reflective endorsement. Externalists respond that internal access is neither necessary nor sufficient for knowledge, as reliable processes evolutionarily underpin human cognition, and demanding meta-awareness risks regress or skepticism. Hybrid views, such as Ernest Sosa's virtue epistemology, attempt reconciliation by requiring both reliable processes and internal aptness, where the subject's faculties manifest competence in forming the belief.

Responses to Skepticism

Externalist approaches in epistemology, particularly process reliabilism, counter skeptical challenges by maintaining that a belief's justification arises from its production via a reliable cognitive process, without necessitating the believer's reflective access to evidence against skeptical hypotheses such as global deception or brains in vats. Alvin Goldman, in developing reliabilism, posits that perceptual beliefs in standard conditions qualify as justified because human sensory systems track truth reliably across possible worlds, thereby preserving knowledge claims even when the subject cannot internally discriminate between veridical experiences and skeptical alternatives. This framework sidesteps Cartesian skepticism by rejecting the internalist demand for higher-order justification or defeat of error possibilities, as reliability is an external relation holding independently of the subject's mental states. Neo-Moorean variants of externalism further bolster this response by affirming ordinary of the external world—such as "I have hands"—as basic and non-inferentially justified, while deeming skeptical scenarios incompatible with such without requiring evidential refutation. Philosophers like James Van Cleve and John Greco argue that this stance aligns with externalist , where intellectual virtues (reliable dispositions) ground justification externally, evading the regressive demands that internalism imposes and which often culminate in . Critics of internalism within this tradition, including Goldman, highlight that access-based requirements lead to because ordinary agents lack conscious awareness of process reliability or undefeated evidence, rendering most beliefs unjustified under strong internalist criteria. Internalist responses to , by contrast, seek to preserve justification through accessible mental states while addressing the evidential gap skeptics exploit. One strategy, dogmatism, asserts that perceptual seemings confer immediate justification, enabling the rejection of skeptical hypotheses unless defeated by superior internal ; this allows without prior refutation of error possibilities. , another internalist tack, employs to the best , contending that hypotheses positing a reliable external world better account for coherent experiences than skeptical alternatives, with the explanatory superiority accessible introspectively. These maneuvers aim to vindicate internalism against charges of inherent , though proponents acknowledge that weak access internalism may still falter if skeptical undermines reflective confidence in .

Key Arguments and Criticisms

One primary argument for epistemic internalism is the deontological rationale: justification carries normative force akin to a or permission, implying that subjects must be able to access and evaluate the grounds for their beliefs to be epistemically responsible or blamable for error. Laurence BonJour emphasizes that without reflective access to justificatory factors, such as coherent reasons or , beliefs lack the internal basis needed to guide or distinguish them from mere , rendering external factors insufficient for genuine justification. This view aligns with the idea that epistemic evaluation should supervene on mental states, ensuring consistency across possible worlds where external conditions vary but internal states remain identical. Critics of internalism, particularly process reliabilists, contend that it invites or an untenable regress, as accessible reasons demand infinite reflection without foundational stopping points, failing to explain everyday like perceptual reliability. argues that internalism overlooks empirical evidence from showing that humans, animals, and infants acquire justified s via unmonitored reliable processes, such as basic , without needing conscious access, which externalism accommodates naturally. Externalism's strength lies in its truth-tracking: a belief is justified if produced by a reliable type of process, measured by truth ratio in counterfactual normal conditions, thus avoiding internalism's isolation from causal reality. A central criticism of externalism is the new evil demon scenario, where an agent's beliefs are rendered reliable by a demon's intervention, yet the agent possesses no internal of reliability, intuitively undermining justification despite external —internalists like BonJour use this to argue that reliability alone permits "Gettier-style" lucky true beliefs as . Externalists respond that such cases fail to specify a genuinely reliable process type or conflate justification with blamelessness, and intuitions favoring internal access stem from conflating epistemic with ethical norms rather than truth-conduciveness. Further, faces the generality problem: defining process types (e.g., "vision" vs. "vision in ") to exclude unreliable instances without ad hoc adjustments, potentially allowing clairvoyant beliefs as justified if deemed reliable in type, though Goldman counters by appealing to causal chains and environmental fit.

Ethics

Motivational Internalism

Motivational internalism asserts that there exists a necessary connection between an agent's sincere moral judgment and their to act in accordance with that judgment. According to this view, if an individual judges that a particular action is morally required, they are thereby motivated, at least to some degree, to perform it, with the link being conceptual or conceptual in nature rather than merely psychological or contingent. This thesis contrasts with motivational externalism, which maintains that moral judgments can lack any intrinsic motivational force, allowing for cases where agents judge an action morally obligatory yet feel no corresponding urge to comply. Philosophers distinguish between strong and weak forms of motivational internalism. Strong internalism posits an exceptionless necessity: even insincere or abnormal agents who utter judgments are motivated accordingly, though this faces challenges from apparent counterexamples like deliberate amoralists who endorse claims without desire to act. Weak internalism qualifies the connection, holding it for psychologically normal agents or requiring sincere judgment, thus accommodating phenomena such as (weakness of will) where motivation exists but is overridden. Proponents argue that internalism aligns with ordinary language, where terms like "ought" imply motivational pull, as denying this severs from practical reason. Influential formulations trace to figures like , who linked moral prescriptions to universalized motivation, though advanced related ideas by tying reasons to an agent's subjective motivational set (S), arguing that external reasons disconnected from S fail to rationalize action. Internalists often invoke conceptual analysis: moral judgment constitutively involves motivation, making amoralism incoherent rather than a genuine . Critics challenge internalism with empirical and conceptual counterexamples. Cases of moral licensing—where agents judge an act wrong yet proceed after "balancing" good deeds—suggest motivation is not guaranteed by judgment alone. Externalists like Michael Smith contend that internalism conflates belief with desire, overlooking how permits cognitive states without automatic conation, supported by observations of unmotivated moral experts or hypocrites. While internalists respond by refining to dispositional motivation (e.g., a tendency under ideal conditions), detractors argue this dilutes the thesis into triviality, failing to explain why moral judgment reliably tracks action in practice. The debate persists, with internalism appealing to those prioritizing ' action-guiding role but straining against evidence of motivational gaps in .

Reasons Internalism

Reasons internalism holds that an agent's normative reasons to act are necessarily connected to facts about the agent's motivational psychology, such that an agent has a reason to φ only if φ-ing bears some favorable deliberative relation to elements in the agent's subjective motivational set (S), which includes desires, beliefs, and commitments. introduced the distinction between internal and external reasons in his 1979 essay, arguing that internal reasons are those an agent could reach through sound deliberation from their S, while external reasons—independent of S—fail to provide genuine guidance for action and risk imposing alien standards on the agent. This view contrasts with motivational internalism, which links judgments directly to , by focusing instead on the content of reasons themselves rather than judgments. A core formulation of reasons internalism, as defended by Williams, emphasizes that external reasons claims presuppose an implausible "one thought too many" in practical reasoning, where agents must consult an external vantage point detached from their own S, leading to practical incoherence. For instance, Williams contended that an amoralist with no concern for others lacks any reason to act altruistically, as external moral reasons cannot override the absence of internal motivational links without against internalism. Proponents like extend this by arguing that internalism better captures the perspectival nature of , where reasons must be intelligible from the agent's viewpoint to avoid arbitrariness in ethical demands. Variations include "strong" internalism, which requires actual in S for a reason to exist, and "weak" or hypothetical versions, where reasons depend on what the agent would be motivated by after ideal deliberation. Williams favored a deliberative internalism, where reasons are sound if they survive reflective scrutiny within the agent's S, preserving personal integrity against external impositions. Empirical support draws from psychological studies showing 's role in perceived obligatoriness; for example, agents report stronger reasons alignment when actions connect to personal values, aligning with internalist predictions over externalist ones that posit motivation-independent reasons. Critics of externalism, following Williams, argue it entails the unintelligibility of or advice for unmotivated agents, as external reasons cannot explain why such agents should care about them.

Key Arguments and Criticisms

One primary argument for epistemic internalism is the deontological rationale: justification carries normative force akin to a or permission, implying that subjects must be able to access and evaluate the grounds for their beliefs to be epistemically responsible or blamable for error. Laurence BonJour emphasizes that without reflective access to justificatory factors, such as coherent reasons or , beliefs lack the internal basis needed to guide or distinguish them from mere , rendering external factors insufficient for genuine justification. This view aligns with the idea that epistemic evaluation should supervene on mental states, ensuring consistency across possible worlds where external conditions vary but internal states remain identical. Critics of internalism, particularly process reliabilists, contend that it invites or an untenable regress, as accessible reasons demand infinite reflection without foundational stopping points, failing to explain everyday like perceptual reliability. argues that internalism overlooks empirical evidence from showing that humans, animals, and infants acquire justified s via unmonitored reliable processes, such as basic , without needing conscious access, which externalism accommodates naturally. Externalism's strength lies in its truth-tracking: a belief is justified if produced by a reliable type of process, measured by truth ratio in counterfactual normal conditions, thus avoiding internalism's isolation from causal reality. A central criticism of externalism is the new evil demon scenario, where an agent's beliefs are rendered reliable by a demon's intervention, yet the agent possesses no internal of reliability, intuitively undermining justification despite external —internalists like BonJour use this to argue that reliability alone permits "Gettier-style" lucky true beliefs as . Externalists respond that such cases fail to specify a genuinely reliable process type or conflate justification with blamelessness, and intuitions favoring internal access stem from conflating epistemic with ethical norms rather than truth-conduciveness. Further, faces the generality problem: defining process types (e.g., "vision" vs. "vision in ") to exclude unreliable instances without adjustments, potentially allowing clairvoyant beliefs as justified if deemed reliable in type, though Goldman counters by appealing to causal chains and environmental fit.

Philosophy of Language and Semantics

Meaning and Truth Conditions

Semantic internalism posits that the meaning of linguistic expressions and the truth conditions of sentences are determined solely by factors internal to the speaker, such as their psychological states and narrow content of their mental representations. Under this view, two individuals with identical internal mental states would express the same meanings and share the same truth conditions for their utterances, regardless of differences in their external environments or causal histories. This position aligns with traditional theories emphasizing the psychological act of grasping meaning, where and truth conditions derive directly from internal content without dependence on external social or physical factors. Semantic externalism, in contrast, contends that meaning and truth conditions depend on relations to the external world, including environmental features, social practices, and historical causal chains. Hilary Putnam's illustrates this: an individual on referring to "" (H₂O) has different truth conditions for sentences like " quenches thirst" compared to their physically identical counterpart on Twin Earth, where "water" denotes XYZ, a superficially similar but chemically distinct substance. Thus, the of such a sentence holds for H₂O on but fails for XYZ on Twin Earth, demonstrating that semantic content and truth conditions are not fully fixed internally. Putnam's argument, encapsulated in the slogan "meanings ain't in the head," challenges internalism by showing that external factors like the nature of the determine semantic properties. In truth-conditional semantics, where sentence meaning is equated with the conditions under which it is true, externalism implies that truth conditions incorporate external elements, such as the actual referents in the speaker's environment or community linguistic conventions. For instance, the truth conditions for terms like "" or indexicals like "here" vary with external contexts, undermining claims of purely internal determination. Internalists respond by appealing to a notion of narrow content that preserves shared meanings across possible worlds with identical internal states, though this often requires additional machinery to account for without external ties. The debate persists, with externalism gaining traction through empirical considerations like deferred ostension in fixing, where speakers' meanings rely on communities or historical usage rather than isolated mental states.

Reference and Interpretation

Semantic externalism posits that the reference of terms is determined not solely by an individual's internal mental states but by causal-historical connections to the external world, as argued by in his , where names like "" refer via a chain of communication originating from an initial baptism or acquaintance, rather than descriptive content in the speaker's mind. Hilary Putnam's further illustrates this, showing that "water" on refers to H₂O due to environmental factors, while an identical internal state on Twin Earth (with XYZ) refers to a different substance, undermining internalist accounts of reference fixed purely by psychological states. Internalist theories of reference, such as descriptivism associated with Frege and Russell, counter that reference derives from internal conceptual associations, where a term's meaning and referent are given by definite descriptions held in the mind, though Kripke's critiques demonstrate such views fail for proper names lacking uniquely identifying descriptions. In interpretation, externalism implies that understanding a speaker's requires triangulating their utterances with shared external realities and interpersonal , as in Donald Davidson's radical interpretation, where meaning is holistically assigned via the principle of charity—maximizing truth and rationality by aligning the interpreter's with the speaker's causal interactions with the world—thus grounding semantics externally rather than in isolated internal representations. Internalist approaches to interpretation, emphasizing narrow content determined by intrinsic mental properties, face challenges from externalist arguments, as identical internal states could yield divergent interpretations without environmental context, leading critics like Tyler Burge to argue that content individualism ignores socially and causally embedded deference to experts or communal practices in fixing reference. Debates persist, with some defending internalist metasemantics by appealing to first-person access to meaning, but empirical considerations from , such as deferred reference in terms, favor externalist explanations of how interpretation succeeds across diverse linguistic communities.

Key Arguments and Criticisms

One primary argument for epistemic internalism is the deontological rationale: justification carries normative force akin to a or permission, implying that subjects must be able to access and evaluate the grounds for their beliefs to be epistemically responsible or blamable for error. Laurence BonJour emphasizes that without reflective access to justificatory factors, such as coherent reasons or , beliefs lack the internal basis needed to guide inquiry or distinguish them from mere , rendering external factors insufficient for genuine justification. This view aligns with the idea that epistemic evaluation should supervene on mental states, ensuring consistency across possible worlds where external conditions vary but internal states remain identical. Critics of internalism, particularly process reliabilists, contend that it invites or an untenable regress, as accessible reasons demand infinite reflection without foundational stopping points, failing to explain everyday like perceptual reliability. argues that internalism overlooks empirical evidence from showing that humans, animals, and infants acquire justified s via unmonitored reliable processes, such as basic , without needing conscious access, which externalism accommodates naturally. Externalism's strength lies in its truth-tracking: a belief is justified if produced by a reliable type of process, measured by truth ratio in counterfactual normal conditions, thus avoiding internalism's isolation from causal reality. A central criticism of externalism is the new evil demon scenario, where an agent's beliefs are rendered reliable by a demon's intervention, yet the agent possesses no internal of reliability, intuitively undermining justification despite external success—internalists like BonJour use this to argue that reliability alone permits "Gettier-style" lucky true beliefs as . Externalists respond that such cases fail to specify a genuinely reliable process type or conflate justification with blamelessness, and intuitions favoring internal access stem from conflating epistemic with ethical norms rather than truth-conduciveness. Further, faces the generality problem: defining process types (e.g., "vision" vs. "vision in ") to exclude unreliable instances without ad hoc adjustments, potentially allowing clairvoyant beliefs as justified if deemed reliable in type, though Goldman counters by appealing to causal chains and environmental fit.

Philosophy of Mind

Mental Content and Intentionality

Externalism about mental content posits that the representational properties of certain intentional s—such as beliefs and thoughts—are not fully determined by factors internal to , such as neurophysiological or functional states, but depend instead on relations to the external environment or social practices. This view challenges traditional internalist conceptions of , the directedness or "aboutness" of mental states toward objects, properties, or propositions, by suggesting that what a mental state represents requires causal-historical connections beyond the . In contrast, internalists argue for narrow content, where supervenes solely on internal states, preserving the intuition that physically identical individuals in identical internal conditions possess the same mental contents regardless of external differences. Hilary Putnam's 1975 Twin Earth argument provides a foundational case for environmental externalism concerning mental content. Consider two individuals, Oscar on and his physically identical counterpart on Twin Earth, who inhabit worlds differing only in the chemical composition of the clear liquid filling lakes and called "": H₂O on , but a superficially identical substance XYZ on Twin Earth. Both Oscars are in identical internal states when thinking " quenches thirst," yet Putnam contends their thoughts have distinct contents—Oscar-'s referring to H₂O, Oscar-Twin's to XYZ—because content is fixed by the actual causal relations in their respective environments, not internal duplicates alone. This implies intentional states like these beliefs gain their specific aboutness through external factors, undermining internalism's claim that content is individualistic. Tyler Burge extended externalism to social dimensions in his "" , arguing for content's dependence on communal linguistic practices. A subject, Bert, sincerely asserts a that he has in his , using the term as understood in his linguistic , where "" denotes inflammation of the s. Despite Bert's internal states matching those who might misapply the term privately, Burge maintains Bert's content concerns joint inflammation (not , as a purely internalist view might allow), because semantic norms are partially constituted by to expert or communal usage. Thus, in propositional attitudes involves relational ties to shared social practices, such that incomplete individual understanding does not sever content from collective determinants. These externalist positions raise implications for intentionality's causal role in and . Externalism suggests that mental states' representational accuracy—and hence their efficacy in guiding action—relies on alignment with external realities, as in Putnam's case where mismatched environments yield non-veridical thoughts without internal markers of difference. Internalists counter by proposing two-tiered contents: wide (external-relational) for semantic evaluation and narrow (internal) for psychological laws and self-knowledge, attempting to reconcile intentionality's aboutness with . Empirical considerations, such as studies on acquisition showing environmental and social influences on categorization (e.g., children's learning of kinds via causal interactions), lend indirect support to externalism, though debates persist on whether such factors causally determine core content or merely modulate it.

Individualism vs. Externalism

Individualism in the asserts that the nature and individuation of mental states depend exclusively on factors internal to the individual, such as their physical or functional brain states, without reference to external relations or environmental context. This view, often termed narrow content , implies that two individuals with identical internal states possess the same mental contents, regardless of differences in their surroundings or social milieu. articulated a defense of via methodological in his 1980 paper, arguing that must treat mental processes as operating on formal, syntactic properties akin to computational rules, insulated from wide semantic content influenced by the world, to enable predictive and explanatory scientific theories of . Fodor maintained that this approach aligns with the causal efficacy of mental states in behavior, as external factors, while relevant to interpretation, are not constitutive of the states themselves driving psychological laws. Externalism counters that mental content is at least partially determined by external relations, including physical environments, causal histories, or communal linguistic practices, leading to wide content where identical internal states can yield divergent meanings across contexts. Tyler Burge advanced social externalism in his 1979 work, contending through counterfactual thought experiments that intentional states like beliefs incorporate communal entitlements and norms. In the seminal "" case, a internally identical to a counterpart but embedded in a where "" denotes only joint ailments believes something false about their , whereas the counterpart, in a linguistic environment extending the term to thighs, holds a true belief with different content, illustrating that social factors fix propositional attitudes. This challenges by showing that mental states do not supervene on internal properties alone, as relational embedding alters content without altering phenomenology or causal role. The core tension lies in explanatory priorities: individualists prioritize narrow content for causal explanations in , positing it as the vehicle of and behavior, with wide content emerging derivatively from external indexing. Externalists argue that wide content better captures , , and , as narrow analogs fail to distinguish beliefs with genuine truth-conditional differences, potentially undermining psychological realism. Empirical considerations, such as studies on concept acquisition showing environmental deference (e.g., deference to experts shaping natural kind concepts since the ), bolster externalist claims by demonstrating how content stability relies on worldly anchors rather than isolated intrinsics. Proponents of each view debate whether individualism secures scientific or externalism reveals indispensable , with no consensus as of 2025, though computational models increasingly incorporate hybrid internal-external dynamics.

Key Arguments and Criticisms

One primary argument for epistemic internalism is the deontological rationale: justification carries normative force akin to a or permission, implying that subjects must be able to access and evaluate the grounds for their beliefs to be epistemically responsible or blamable for error. Laurence BonJour emphasizes that without reflective access to justificatory factors, such as coherent reasons or , beliefs lack the internal basis needed to guide inquiry or distinguish them from mere opinion, rendering external factors insufficient for genuine justification. This view aligns with the idea that epistemic evaluation should supervene on mental states, ensuring consistency across possible worlds where external conditions vary but internal states remain identical. Critics of internalism, particularly process reliabilists, contend that it invites or an untenable regress, as accessible reasons demand infinite reflection without foundational stopping points, failing to explain everyday like perceptual reliability. argues that internalism overlooks empirical evidence from showing that humans, animals, and infants acquire justified s via unmonitored reliable processes, such as basic , without needing conscious access, which externalism accommodates naturally. Externalism's strength lies in its truth-tracking: a belief is justified if produced by a reliable type of process, measured by truth ratio in counterfactual normal conditions, thus avoiding internalism's isolation from causal reality. A central criticism of externalism is the new evil demon scenario, where an agent's beliefs are rendered reliable by a demon's intervention, yet the agent possesses no internal of reliability, intuitively undermining justification despite external —internalists like BonJour use this to argue that reliability alone permits "Gettier-style" lucky true beliefs as . Externalists respond that such cases fail to specify a genuinely reliable process type or conflate justification with blamelessness, and intuitions favoring internal access stem from conflating epistemic with ethical norms rather than truth-conduciveness. Further, faces the generality problem: defining process types (e.g., "vision" vs. "vision in ") to exclude unreliable instances without ad hoc adjustments, potentially allowing clairvoyant beliefs as justified if deemed reliable in type, though Goldman counters by appealing to causal chains and environmental fit.

Historiography of Science

Internal Histories

Internal histories in the of prioritize the rational reconstruction of scientific ideas, emphasizing developments driven by internal factors such as logical argumentation, , theoretical consistency, and problem-solving within scientific communities. This approach treats as largely autonomous, progressing cumulatively through the evaluation of hypotheses, experiments, and theories, with minimal attribution to external influences like social norms, funding pressures, or institutional politics. Proponents argue that such reconstructions reveal the normative standards of scientific , enabling historians to appraise past episodes against philosophical criteria for progress rather than mere chronological narrative. Alexandre (1892–1964) advanced internalist through detailed analyses of conceptual shifts in early modern , focusing on primary sources to trace intellectual discontinuities, such as the transition from medieval qualitative physics to the mathematical frameworks of Galileo and Newton. In works examining the , Koyré highlighted how foundational ideas—like the replacement of Aristotelian cosmology with —emerged from internal debates over and , independent of broader societal contexts. His method underscored profound "revolutions in thought" as the engine of change, influencing subsequent historians to prioritize the history of ideas over biographical or environmental details. Imre Lakatos (1922–1974) systematized internal history within his methodology of scientific research programmes, distinguishing it as a normative enterprise that reconstructs science's "hard core" of protected theories and auxiliary hypotheses evaluated via progressive or degenerating problem shifts. In his 1970 paper "History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions," Lakatos contended that internal histories supply the primary explanatory framework for scientific advancement, rendering external factors (e.g., psychological or sociological) secondary and reconstructible only through rational lenses like falsification or heuristic appraisal. For instance, he reconstructed Euclidean geometry's endurance not via cultural contingencies but through its problem-solving power relative to rivals, critiquing descriptive approaches for conflating rationality with anomaly. Lakatos's framework, applied to cases like Newtonian mechanics, posits that historiography must align with philosophy to discern genuine progress, avoiding descriptive relativism. This internalist emphasis has been exemplified in studies of paradigm-internal dynamics, such as the logical evolution of atomic theory from Dalton's 1808 postulates to quantum refinements, where evidential constraints and theoretical coherence dictate shifts rather than exogenous events. Critics within note potential in imposing modern rationality, yet internalists maintain that such reconstructions best capture science's self-correcting nature, as evidenced by Lakatos's appraisal of programmes like phlogiston theory's degeneration against oxygen's progressiveness by 1780s standards.

External Histories

External histories in the historiography of science emphasize the causal influence of external factors—such as economic structures, political ideologies, social institutions, and cultural dynamics—on the content, direction, and acceptance of scientific knowledge. Proponents argue that scientific advancements reflect and respond to broader societal pressures rather than emerging solely from logical or empirical necessities within scientific . This perspective, often rooted in , treats science as embedded in the "superstructure" shaped by the material "base" of production and class relations, challenging the notion of science as an autonomous realm of pure reason. The externalist approach gained prominence in the 1930s through Marxist-influenced scholars seeking to apply to scientific history. A foundational text is Boris Hessen's paper "The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's 'Principia,'" presented at the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology in . Hessen, a Soviet physicist and philosopher, contended that Isaac Newton's (1687) addressed mechanical problems arising from the technological imperatives of England's emerging capitalist economy, including , , clockmaking, , and applications like and . He cataloged over 300 references in the Principia to practical inventions and trades, linking them to the demands of the English for efficient exploitation of resources and colonial expansion. Hessen's analysis exemplified externalism by tracing specific scientific concepts—such as the laws of motion and gravitation—to socio-economic needs, portraying Newton's synthesis as a resolution to contradictions in seventeenth-century rather than mere intellectual genius. This framework influenced subsequent works, including J.D. Bernal's 1939 book The Social Function of , which examined how economic crises, wars, and state policies historically drove scientific innovation, such as the rapid advances in chemistry spurred by industrial demands in the nineteenth century. Bernal, a British crystallographer active in left-wing circles, advocated viewing as a social activity amenable to planning, citing examples like the role of in spurring biochemistry research during the . External histories extended to analyses of institutional and ideological conflicts, such as the of astronomical observatories by mercantile states in the early to support trade routes, or the politicization of under Stalinist regimes in the 1930s–1940s, where supplanted Mendelian theory to align with collectivist agricultural policies. While externalism illuminated verifiable correlations between societal shifts and scientific priorities—evident in the post-World War II boom in physics funded by military-industrial complexes—it has been critiqued for deterministic reductions that undervalue internal evidentiary constraints, though proponents maintain that such factors provide essential context for understanding why certain trajectories prevail over others.

Integration and Debates

Efforts to integrate internalist and externalist approaches in the of emerged prominently after the , as critiques of pure internalism—such as its tendency toward "Whig" narratives that retroactively impose modern rationality on past developments—gained traction. Thomas Kuhn's (1962) played a pivotal role by introducing paradigms as both cognitive frameworks (internal) and community-enforced norms (external), arguing that scientific progress involves not linear accumulation but revolutionary shifts triggered by internal anomalies yet shaped by social consensus. This framework encouraged historians to examine how external pressures, like institutional , intersect with internal theoretical tensions, as seen in analyses of the where mathematical innovations (internal) aligned with mercantile demands for navigation (external). Debates persist over the relative autonomy of scientific knowledge, with internalists maintaining that core advancements stem from logical and evidential constraints irreducible to social forces, as defended in Imre Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes (1970), which posits "hard cores" of theory protected by auxiliary hypotheses against external . Externalists, influenced by the Edinburgh Strong Programme (David Bloor, 1976), counter that symmetry in explanation requires treating true and false beliefs alike as products of social interests, evidenced by cases like the debate where ideological biases demonstrably affected reception. Critics of strong externalism, however, highlight its causal overreach, noting empirical studies showing that while funding priorities (e.g., U.S. post-1945 emphasis on physics amid geopolitics) direct resource allocation, they rarely dictate theoretical content, as in the persistence of relativity despite initial military skepticism. Integration has largely supplanted binary oppositions by the late , with hybrid models emphasizing "contextual " that traces causal loops between ideas and environments without reducing one to the other. For instance, Steven Shapin's work on 17th-century experimental culture integrates internal practices of testimony validation with external gentlemanly networks, arguing that neither suffices alone to explain production. Ongoing debates question whether such syntheses adequately preserve scientific ; proponents of refined internalism, like those in the revival of "internal history," advocate focusing on actors' cognitive categories to avoid , while acknowledging external modulation without . Empirical , drawing on archival data from projects like the Darwin Correspondence (ongoing since 1985), supports this balance, revealing how personal rivalries (external) delayed but did not falsify evolutionary theory's internal logic. By the , the "" between camps had subsided, yielding eclectic approaches in global histories that incorporate non-Western contexts, though tensions remain in assessing ideology's role in fields like climate .

Interfield Connections and Broader Implications

Hybrids and Compatibilist Views

Hybrid theories in propose that epistemic justification arises from a combination of internal factors, such as the subject's access to reasons, and external factors, like the reliability of cognitive processes in producing true beliefs. These views address limitations in strict internalism, which risks insulating justification from reality, and pure externalism, which may overlook the subject's reflective awareness. For example, hybrid epistemic internalism posits externalism for the constitution of mental states but requires internal access for their epistemic assessment, as argued in a 2023 philosophical evaluating the consistency of such combinations. Similarly, accounts of and engineered describe hybrid roles for subjects, where epistemic evaluation neither fully internalizes nor externalizes responsibility, but integrates both in assessing belief formation. Compatibilist positions in epistemology contend that internalism and externalism address distinct aspects of justification without inherent conflict, often framing the debate as verbal or resolvable through conceptual clarification. Proponents argue for epistemic by allowing internal access to support deontological notions of justification while external reliability underpins objective warrant, thus unifying the conditions for . This approach, explored since the early , rejects dichotomies by distinguishing doxastic from propositional justification, enabling beliefs to satisfy both internal reflectiveness and external tracking of truth. Critics, however, note that such reconciliations may dilute the core intuitions driving each view, as pure internalism prioritizes subjective rationality and externalism empirical success. In the of , hybrid and compatibilist approaches integrate internal analyses of scientific ideas, logic, and with external considerations of social, economic, and institutional influences, rejecting reductionist extremes. Post-1960s , influenced by Kuhn's 1962 analysis of paradigms, treats scientific revolutions as involving both internal cognitive shifts and external dynamics, where anomalies (internal) interact with professional structures (external) to drive change. Compatibilist historians, such as those advocating , maintain that internal scientific operates within but is not wholly determined by external contexts, preserving of while acknowledging causal interplay; for instance, studies of 17th-century blend evidential reasoning with networks without subordinating one to the other. These views counter pure internalism's ahistorical rational reconstruction and externalism's sociological , emphasizing empirical case studies like the acceptance of , where theological and political factors complemented mathematical arguments. Across and , hybrids reconcile internalist narrow content (individuation by intrinsic states) with externalist wide content (dependence on environment), as in two-factor theories where psychological states have both internal causal roles and external referential fixes. Compatibilists extend this by arguing mental causation persists despite externalism, via mechanisms like asymmetric dependence for reference-fixing without disrupting internal computations. Empirical support from , including 1990s experiments on content attribution, bolsters these integrations by showing how neural processes (internal) interface with worldly relations (external) in .

Influence on Other Domains

The debate between internalism and externalism in , particularly regarding mental content, has extended to , where externalist positions underpin theories of extended . These theories posit that cognitive processes are not confined to intracranial states but incorporate environmental and bodily factors, such as tools or artifacts, as integral to itself. For instance, vehicle externalism argues that external representations can bear genuine cognitive content, challenging traditional brain-bound models of . This influence is evident in computational models of that incorporate environmental interactions, as externalism requires explanations of representational capacities to reference relations beyond the individual mind. In , externalism about meaning—stemming from arguments like those of and Tyler Burge—has impacted semantic theories by emphasizing that linguistic content depends on communal practices and external environments rather than isolated . This has led to hybrid models in formal semantics that integrate social-external factors, influencing fields like and the , where meaning is seen as partially constituted by interlocutors' shared contexts. Externalist insights have also informed debates in , prompting reevaluations of innate versus environmentally shaped mechanisms. Epistemological internalism and externalism have analogous effects in , particularly in the internalism-externalism divide over reasons for action, where internalists hold that normative reasons must connect to an agent's motivational set, while externalists allow reasons independent of such internal states. This parallel shapes metaethical discussions on moral motivation and rational deliberation. In the of , the internal-external dichotomy influenced the rise of (STS), critiquing Whig-style internalism focused solely on ideas and promoting externalist analyses of social, economic, and institutional factors in scientific development, leading to integrated approaches that treat production as embedded in broader contexts.

Ongoing Debates and Recent Developments

In , the internalism-externalism debate persists without resolution, with externalists defending reliabilist accounts of justification that prioritize causal reliability over subjective access, while internalists maintain that epistemic norms require reflective awareness of supporting reasons. Recent scholarship has explored intersections with the ethics of belief, positing that internalist demands better accommodate deontic responsibilities, such as blameworthiness for negligent , whereas externalism risks decoupling justification from agent control. In , content externalism continues to provoke debates on self-knowledge and semantic transparency, particularly how environment-dependent content challenges introspective privileges traditionally assumed under internalist views. Collections of essays from the mid-2010s onward have examined externalism's implications for , arguing that while it resolves certain Fregean puzzles about thought content, it demands revised accounts of first-person authority to avoid privileging unreliable external relations. Historiography of science has seen empirical scrutiny of internal-external tensions, with a September 2025 PNAS study demonstrating an "inherence bias" where explanations of phenomena—both historical and contemporary—favor internal properties (e.g., inherent mechanisms) over external factors (e.g., environmental interactions), even among expert scientists analyzing cases like planetary mass loss. This bias, evident in textual analyses of from the onward and corroborated by experimental surveys, suggests internalist narratives may dominate due to cognitive predispositions rather than evidential warrant, prompting calls for balanced integration of social and material contexts. Naturalized philosophy of science further advances hybrid positions, critiquing rigid dichotomies by incorporating psychological and historical data to model how internal cognitive processes interact with external institutional pressures, as seen in 2023 analyses urging epistemologists to treat the debate as empirically tractable rather than purely conceptual. These developments underscore compatibilist efforts across fields, where external factors are acknowledged as causally efficacious without undermining internal rational norms.

References

  1. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~bergmann/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/synthese-97.pdf
  2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-intext/
  3. https://iep.utm.edu/int-ext/
  4. https://philpapers.org/rec/MADEIM
  5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/
  6. https://iep.utm.edu/reliabilism/
  7. https://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/goldman/Internalism%2C%2520Externalism%2C%2520and%2520the%2520Architecture%2520of%2520Justification.pdf
  8. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/internalism-and-externalism-in-epistemology/v-1/sections/justification-externalism-pro-and-con
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116503
  10. https://philpapers.org/rec/GOLWIJ
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3050621
  12. https://philpapers.org/archive/MADIVE.pdf
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4320590
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108383
  15. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~bergmann/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/OHS-bergmann-final-April-2007-preprint.pdf
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290099281_Internalist_Responses_to_Skepticism
  17. https://fitelson.org/epistemology/fumerton_skepticism_ibe.pdf
  18. https://philpapers.org/rec/BONGAI-2
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25471832
  20. https://publishing.bceln.ca/index.php/phpdialogues/article/download/307/443/420
  21. https://philpapers.org/rec/BERRBD
  22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118609378.ch11
  23. https://philarchive.org/archive/BROMIA-7
  24. https://zoe-johnsonking-blhb.squarespace.com/s/Internalism-and-Externalism-Oxford-Handbook-of-Metaethics-version-12.pdf
  25. https://philarchive.org/archive/MILWOW-2
  26. https://philarchive.org/archive/PARDCA-2
  27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619380
  28. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/x346d4938
  29. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/motivational-internalism/
  30. https://philpapers.org/archive/LORRI.pdf
  31. https://faculty.www.umb.edu/steven.levine/Courses/Action/Williams%2C%2520internal%2520and%2520External%2520Reasons.pdf
  32. http://www.katemanne.net/uploads/7/3/8/4/73843037/internalism_about_reasons_-_km.pdf
  33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048400600571661
  34. https://philpapers.org/rec/TUBSAA-3
  35. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bernard-williams/internal-reasons-and-the-scope-of-blame/C099A83B9A7C2A0C74108FCFFBC943E4
  36. https://philarchive.org/archive/FARSIA
  37. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/02/24/semantic-externalism/
  38. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/semantic-externalis/
  39. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-content-externalism/
  40. https://iep.utm.edu/int-ex-ml/
  41. https://iep.utm.edu/donald-davidson-language/
  42. https://philpapers.org/rec/LAUEAM
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315787060_Externalism_and_Internalism_in_the_Philosophy_of_Mind
  44. https://philarchive.org/archive/BALTEA
  45. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=uhp_theses
  46. https://www2.philosophy.su.se/wikforss/publications/soc%2520externalism%2520phil%2520quart.pdf
  47. https://philarchive.org/archive/GERMCE
  48. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/methodological-solipsism-considered-as-a-research-strategy-in-cognitive-psychology1/1A8F75C5D0FD32918E6E722835ADC742
  49. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0352.xml
  50. https://philosophy.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Burge-Some-remarks-on-externalisms.pdf
  51. https://jshaw.net/courses/langdocs/H19.pdf
  52. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125984865.pdf
  53. https://consc.net/papers/narrow.html
  54. https://philpapers.org/rec/HANWCE
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266347415_Mental_Content_Externalism_and_Social_Understanding
  56. https://direct.mit.edu/posc/article/1/4/603/111563/Lakatos-s-Internal-History-as-Historiography
  57. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/ph201/Week05_Lakatos.pdf
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368101000115
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223933836_History_of_Science_through_Koyre%27s_Lenses
  60. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166411508605919
  62. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-9604-4_2
  63. https://philpapers.org/rec/HESTSA-2
  64. https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/V1_Hessen.pdf
  65. https://descartes-agonistes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/schuster-scirev-ch-24.pdf
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226217120_The_Social_and_Economic_Roots_of_Newton%27s_Principia
  67. https://descartes-agonistes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/schuster-scirev-ch-23.pdf
  68. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/007327539203000401
  69. https://philarchive.org/archive/NANIHV
  70. http://doublerfraction.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-manifesto-for-internal-history-of.html
  71. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691678
  72. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5bc3db12-3797-4d87-a5a5-715215ccbf10
  73. https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/file/21db7548-6229-dbbb-69dc-cfb8596a6628/1/testimony%2C%2520engineered%2520knowledge%2520and%2520internalism.pdf
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-005-3235-z
  75. https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=thesis
  76. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/internalism-vs-externalism/
  77. https://philpapers.org/browse/externalism-and-mental-causation
  78. https://academic.oup.com/book/39485/chapter/339277921
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7437646/
  80. https://philpapers.org/browse/externalism-and-cognitive-science
  81. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-externalism/
  82. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-philosophy-19452015/varieties-of-externalism-linguistic-and-mental/4FFA79A00AD955B630F9EFDFDAF016B2
  83. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-internal-external/
  84. https://descartes-agonistes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/schuster-scirev-ch-25.pdf
  85. https://www.jimpryor.net/research/papers/Highlights.pdf
  86. https://fitelson.org/epistemology/text_ch13.pdf
  87. https://www.amazon.com/Externalism-Self-Knowledge-Skepticism-New-Essays/dp/1107063507
  88. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2424725122
  89. https://bioengineer.org/new-research-reveals-early-inherence-bias-in-the-history-of-science/
  90. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psa-proceedings-of-the-biennial-meeting-of-the-philosophy-of-science-association/article/naturalized-philosophy-of-science-history-of-science-and-the-internalexternal-debate/A23E60B8B6D5E8DB167DCDF5F1DBA955
  91. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-021-00491-z
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.