Abstract

According to explanationism about epistemic defeat, our attitude towards the explanation of our belief in P can sometimes defeat our justification for holding that belief. In this paper I argue for the superiority of a particular version of explanationism which is considered and rejected by Korman and Locke (2023). According to this position our belief in P is defeated if we are not entitled to believe it is either (i) explained by P (i.e econnected), or (ii) explained by some third-factor that also explains P (i.e tf-connected). Korman and Locke call this position “EThirdFactor”. I first argue that our belief in P can be justified if we are entitled to believe it is tf-connected but not e-connected, and argue against a recent proposal from Bogardus and Perrin that threatens this view (2019). I then outline some further rationale behind EThirdfactor, and my reasons for preferring it over alternative explanationist accounts that have been suggested in the literature. Finally, I defend this position against recent objections from Korman and Locke (2023) and others. I conclude that these objections do not threaten my claim that EThirdFactor is the most plausible version of explanationism on the market.