Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • Williamson on Defining Knowledge

  • Manuel Pérez Otero
  • Journal:
    Episteme / Volume 19 / Issue 2 / June 2022
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 July 2020, pp. 286-302

  • In his outstanding book Knowledge and its Limits (2000), Williamson (a) claims that we have inductive evidence for some negative theses concerning the prospects of defining knowledge, like this: knowing cannot be defined in accordance with a determinate traditional conjunctive scheme; (b) defends a theory of mental states, mental concepts and the relations between the two, from which we would obtain additional, not merely inductive, evidence for this negative thesis; and (c) presents an alternative (non-traditional-conjunctive) definition of knowledge. Here I consider these issues and extract two relevant conclusions: (i) Williamson's theory of states and concepts only supports the negative thesis because this theory would explain too much, since it imposes implausible necessary limitations on possible uses of concepts and linguistic expressions. So, there is no appropriate non-inductive evidence for the negative thesis. (ii) Williamson's own definition of knowledge is at risk.

  • Chapter 13 - Roush on knowledge:

  • from Part IV - Sensitivity without subjunctives
  • Edited by Kelly Becker, University of New Mexico, Tim Black, California State University, Northridge
  • Book:
    The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
    Published online:
    05 September 2012
    Print publication:
    02 August 2012, pp 229-241

  • Summary

    This chapter provides grounds for thinking that it is the quality of the reasons for the propositional content of our belief-states with true propositional contents, rather than the etiology of those belief-states, that determines whether the belief-state qualifies as knowledge. Normative epistemology rather than naturalized epistemology holds the key to understanding knowledge. This chapter delineates some important features of epistemic luck. It explores the etiology view and presents reasons for concluding that it cannot adequately account for epistemic luck. The chapter then explores the reasons view and shows how it can account for some of the cases that are troublesome for the etiology view. There are many well-discussed and widely accepted counterexamples in the literature for each of the etiology views, with the exception of the virtue-views because those views are still relatively new.

  • Chapter 7 - Truth-tracking and the value of knowledge

  • from Part II - Criticism
  • Edited by Kelly Becker, University of New Mexico, Tim Black, California State University, Northridge
  • Book:
    The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
    Published online:
    05 September 2012
    Print publication:
    02 August 2012, pp 101-121

  • Summary

    Robert Nozick's conception of knowledge has triggered a lot of criticism over the last three decades. This chapter first argues that at least in many cases Nozick is not forced to deny common closure principles. Second, and much more importantly, Nozick does not, despite first and second appearances and despite his own words, deny closure. On the contrary, he is defending a more sophisticated and complex principle of closure. Nozick holds that a true belief constitutes knowledge just in case it stands in a certain modal relation to the fact that makes it true. The chapter explains why closure is not satisfying and proposes a modification. It argues that one can find a more satisfying principle in Nozick's text. This chapter discusses how this principle deals with relevant problem cases. Both Nozick-Knowledge and Nozick-Closure seem to give the wrong, negative verdict about knowledge.