Concepts of justification and excuse applicable under this section may be developed in the light of reason and experience.
It is important to keep these issues apart because a disagreement on how to answer the second question will be a mere verbal dispute, if the disagreeing parties have different concepts of justification in mind.
After all, the question arises whether, given the two concepts of justification, ours is the one that ought to be used for performing normative epistemic evaluations (Stich 1990; for further discussion see Williamson 2005, Sosa 2009, Stich 2009, Weinberg, Nichols, & Stich 2001, Weinberg et al. 2010).
There is one additional view that is often thought of as internalist in epistemology, namely the idea that the concept of justification is a deontological concept.
This deontological component may not be all there is to the concept of justification, as defenders of the deontological concept sometimes allege; but, these and related examples do strongly support the view that there is some deontological ingredient in our concept of justification.
This third form of internalism is the deontological concept of justification, whose main idea is that the concept of epistemic justification is to be analyzed in terms of fulfilling one's intellectual duties or responsibilities.
Indeed, some leading internalists explicitly reject the GD conception and any deontological concept that is proposed as an analysis of the concept of justification, and yet this fact has no effect on their one important form of internalism, namely mentalism (Conee and Feldman 2001).
It would be an account of that concept that steers completely clear of talk of intellectual duties or responsibilities, but instead analyzes the concept of justification in some other way, perhaps in terms of degree of evidential support or in terms of being truth-conducive.
It readily conjoins with a concept of justification of either of these evidential sorts, and so accessibility internalism does not entail that a deontological concept of justification is correct.
Doug Bandow's plea for 10-year renewable terms for Federal judges ("End Life Tenure for Judges," Op-Ed, Sept. 6) is flawed in both concept and justification.
Mr. Weill's original business concept — the justification of financial conglomeration — was to provide one-stop shopping to any and all customers.
