Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:48:24.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Analysis of Knowledge in the Second Edition of Theory of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Earl B. Conee
Earl B. Conee*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Roderick Chisholm has offered a new attempt to define knowledge in the second edition of Theory of Knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to present an objection to that definiton.

Here is the proposed definition (numbering below follows the text):

D6.4 h is known by 5 =df h is accepted by S; h is true; and h is nondefectively evident for 5.

To understand D6.4 we need to know what it is for a proposition to be nondefectively evident for a person. That has the following definition:

D6.3 h is nondefectively evident for S=df Either h is sertain for S, or h is evident for S and is entailed by a conjunction of propositions each having for S a basis which is not a basis for any false proposition.

There are four technical expressions in D6.3: “entailed,” “certain” “evident,” and “basis.“

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 295 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Chisholm, Roderick Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977, p. 110.Google Scholar
[2] ibid, p. 109.Google Scholar
[3] ibid, p. 137.Google Scholar
[4] ibid, p. 10.Google Scholar
[5] ibid, pp. 6-7, 12–15.Google Scholar
[6] ibid, p. 7.Google Scholar
[7] ibid, p. 7.Google Scholar
[8] ibid, p. 106.Google Scholar
[9] ibid, p. 22.Google Scholar