Due modelli di epistemologia naturalizzata a confronto

This paper examines two different theories about the naturalization of epistemology: the argu- ments by Goldman and Quine. According to Goldman our beliefs must be causally connect- ed to facts in an appropriate way, and the causes of our beliefs must be studied via psychology. Quine, on the other hand, advocates an extreme naturalization, which reduces epistemology to a branch of psychology so that philosophy loses its usual normative role. My main goal is to compare these two accounts in order to show how Goldman creates a more comprehensive account that combines psychology and philosophy into an efficient part- nership – a partnership which Quine cannot create because he elides the normative role of epistemology.