ABSTRACT
Each of these interpretations faces prima facie difficulties: According to de Bary, Lehrer’s interpretation invites a dilemma – first horn: FP#7 is redundant, because other FPs already speak to the reliability of our faculties; second horn: if such reliability principles leave a truth gap yet to be bridged, then FP#7 does too, and so a further such principle (a meta-meta-principle) is required. On the other hand, de Bary’s interpretation faces clear textual barriers, not least (but not only – see below) because, as just noted, Reid himself says, as Lehrer has it, that FP #7 enjoys a kind of priority over the others; in the end, de Bary’s reading, as he admits, appears to force us to put down such claims as just ‘bad Reid’.
