I came to epistemology relatively late, but since it asks how we know things, as both a scientist and as a Christian, I have grown to consider this one of the most compelling fields in philosophy.

This book has helped me along considerably. For a collaboration between three philosophers, the taut, cogent writing in this book is particularly impressive. The present all the key debates in modern epistemology, their roots, and then give you suggested readings at the end, so if something catches your fancy,you'll know where to look. And that sums it up: this is a fantastic introduction to epistemology.

The "Theory of Knowledge" is a clearly written introduction to the field of epistemology ideal for new-comers to this important topic in philosophy. The book is written by three practicing philosphers who pool their understanding of epistemology to present the subject in simple, clear and vibrant language.

The first two chapters of the book lay the framework for subsequent discussions by explaining why the study of knowledge is important. This is followed in chapters 3, 4 and 5 by an explanation of the ideas of what the authors call the "traditional analysis of knowledge", namely, belief, truth and justification. As they describe it, belief is a necessary condition for knowledge; asking about truth boils down to discovering what conditions a sentence, statement, belief or proposition must satisfy to be true; and justification for our beliefs implies an "adequate indication" of truth.

Subsequent chapters discuss our sources of knowledge, rationality and skeptical theories to our ability to really have true knowledge of the world. The final chapter, "Epistemology and Explanation" fleshes out a position the authors raise at earlier points in the book; i.e., that of "inference to the best explanation" (also referred to as "abductive inference"). Inference to the best explanation involves justifying our beliefs based upon the explanatory power of various claims about the world. One of the values of this approach, in my view, is that it moves away from the attempts of earlier philosophers to devise a universal theory of knowledge (which skepticsm has been able to easily shoot holes through). In keeping with their undogmatic and fair-minded style of presentation of the subject, the authors also discuss the limitations of abductive inference in answering skepticism.

The book provides a useful glossary of terms, references and a section for further reading based upon each of the book's chapters. The major benefit of this book is that its clear and no-frills presentation armed me with a basic and solid understanding of the field of epistemology whereby I can pursue a more advanced understanding of the field with confidence.

A fine reader on materilaist philosophy covering lots of ground and giving the patinet reader much to think about (as with most academic literature, the reader must slog through a dense thicket of jargon to get at the substance of the writing). Essays are included by advocates of non-reductive (everything reduces to physics in principal, but "special sciences" are needed to fully explain everyday phenomenon), reductive (everything can & should ultimately reduce to physics), and eliminative materialism (our current vocabulary of mental phenomenon should be completely replaced)as well as several critiques of materialism.

If you can manage to penetrate the thick layer of terminological gobbledygook and actually peak behind it in order to understand what is meant, this book is certainly excellent. In a thoroughly systematic way, Moser shows, given certain definitions of belief and truth, that a moderate foundationalism is the most plausible theory of knowledge. His foundationalism, so he claims, can deal with skeptical objections such as the Dreamer or Evil Demon hypotheses, put the skeptic on the defensive (for once), give an account of knowledge that is Gettier-proof, and avoid all the pitfalls of alternative epistemological theories, such as coherentism and reliabilism.

Moser argues for his theory at great length, anticipating and refuting possible objections, as well as dealing with already common objections against foundationalism made by people like Sellars and Rorty. My impression was that Moser certainly has done his homework and can defend his theory very well. It is all thought out to a tee. That, of course, doesn't mean his foundationalism is flawless or cannot be revised. In fact, Moser insists that it is one of his theory's great advantages that it *can* be revised if necessary. This also ties into his answer to the notorious Problem of the Criterion.

Again, the material the book presents and the many critiques of alternative views are all excellent, but it is a real nuisance to read the book because it is so filled with analytical definitions (sometimes a third of a page long) and countless "if-and-only-if's" that it is easy to get discouraged and lose sight of the whole picture. A short summary like a "Precis" of this book would be in order. It would make the terrific content of the work accessible to a much wider audience and thus benefit more people.

A professor of philosophy at the local university recommended this book as a good introduction to the topic of ethical (moral) relativism, suitable for the layperson. It definitely isn't. I read the lengthy introduction, which lays out the landscape of the topic and defines a bunch of terms. Then I read the first essay, which does exactly the same thing. I started on the second essay and realized that these essays just are not suited for a layperson novice in the field.

So I skipped to the final section, which is purported to be "a case study on female circumcision/genital mutilation that vividly brings into focus the practical aspects and implications of moral relativism." It sure looked more "user friendly". But the case study isn't really much of a case study as it is a poorly thought out argument against using moral relativism to defend these practices. It's been 15 years since I took my last philosophy course in college, but even I noticed the glaring logic errors used one after another in this argument.

I don't think I've ever been this dissatisfied with a book, so I felt I had to write a review to warn you to stay away!