Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T12:14:40.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EMPIRICAL TESTS OF INTEREST-RELATIVE INVARIANTISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2012

Chandra Sekhar Sripada  and
Jason Stanley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Interest-Relative Invariantism, whether an agent knows that p, or possesses other sorts of epistemic properties or relations, is in part determined by the practical costs of being wrong about p. Recent studies in experimental philosophy have tested the claims of IRI. After critically discussing prior studies, we present the results of our own experiments that provide strong support for IRI. We discuss our results in light of complementary findings by other theorists, and address the challenge posed by a leading intellectualist alternative to our view.

Information

Type
Symposium on Pragmatic Encroachment
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 3 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Buckwalter, Wesley. 2010. ‘Knowledge isn't Closed on Saturday: A Study in Ordinary Language.’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3): 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, Keith. Forthcoming. ‘Contextualism, Contrastivism, and X-Phi Surveys.’ Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Fantl, Jeremy, and McGrath, Matthew. 2002. ‘Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification.’ Philosophical Review, 111: 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, Jeremy, and McGrath, Matthew. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltz, Adam, and Zarpentine, Chris. Forthcoming. ‘Do you Know More When it Matters Less?’ Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John. 2000. ‘Implicit Belief and a Priori Knowledge.’ Southern Journal of Philosophy, 38(S1): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and Stanley, Jason. 2008. ‘Knowledge and Action.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105: 571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maasen, Gerard H., and Bakker, Arnold B. 2001. ‘Suppressor Variables in Path Models.’ Sociological Methods and Research, 30(2): 241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Joshua, Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, Hull, Jay, and Zimmerman, Aaron. 2010. ‘Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: An Empirical Study.’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2): 265–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, Jennifer. 2008. ‘Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of Changing Stakes.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86(2): 279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Jennifer. 2010. ‘Epistemic Anxiety and Adaptive Invariantism.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1): 407–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinillos, Angel. Forthcoming. ‘Knowledge, Experiments and Practical Interests.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), Knowledge Ascriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Lee, Jeong-Yeon, and Podsakoff, Nathan P. 2003. ‘Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 897–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffer, Jonathon, and Knobe, Joshua. Forthcoming. ‘Contrastive Knowledge Surveyed.’ Nous.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. Forthcoming. ‘Stakes, Withholding, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Jonathan M., Nichols, Shaun, and Stich, Stephen. 2001. ‘Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 429–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar