This chapter examines the proposal that the best way to answer an epistemological how-possible question is by means of a transcendental argument. Although it might appear that transcendental arguments are closely related to the multi-levels response to how-possible questions, it is argued that they are different from each other and that the latter response is better. It remains to be seen whether transcendental arguments have any legitimate role in epistemology, but the point is that it is a mistake to think that their role is to explain how knowledge is possible. Transcendental arguments aren't necessary if the object of the exercise is to answer an epistemological how-possible question, and they aren't sufficient either.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.