Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:23:08.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS KNOWLEDGE THE ABILITY TO ϕ FOR THE REASON THAT P?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2014

Nick Hughes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hyman (1999, 2006) argues that knowledge is best conceived as a kind of ability: S knows that p iff S can ϕ for the reason that p. Hyman motivates this thesis by appealing to Gettier cases. I argue that it is counterexampled by a certain kind of Gettier case where the fact that p is a cause of the subject's belief that p. One can ϕ for the reason that p even if one does not know that p. So knowledge is not best conceived as an ability of this kind.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 457 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Chisholm, R. 1966. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1993. Working Without a Net. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–91.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1973. Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Stanley, J. 2008. ‘Knowledge and Action.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105: 571–90.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. 1998. ‘Actually knowing.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 48: 453–69.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. 2007. ‘Knowledge in Action.’ In Leist, A. (ed.) Action in Context, pp. 285–302. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyman, J. 1999. ‘How Knowledge Works.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 433–51.Google Scholar
Hyman, J. 2006. ‘Knowledge and Evidence.’ Mind, 115: 891–916.Google Scholar
Klein, P. 1985. ‘The Virtues of Inconsistency.’ The Monist, 68: 105–35.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H. 1970. ‘Conjunctivitis.’ In Swain, M. (ed.), Induction, Acceptance, and Rational Belief, pp. 55–82. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 549–67.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. Forthcoming. ‘The Russellian Retreat.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Google Scholar
Lycan, W. 2006. ‘On the Gettier Problem Problem.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 148–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. 2009. ‘Treating Something as a Reason for Action.’ Nous, 43: 684–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2007. ‘Sensitivity, Safety, and Anti-luck Epistemology.’ In Greco, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Scepticism, pp. 437–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2008. ‘Radical Scepticism, Epistemic Luck, and Epistemic Value.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 82 (suppl. vol.): 19–41.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 2010. ‘What Else Justification Could Be.’ Nous, 44: 10–31.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. 2012. ‘The Normative Role of Knowledge.’ Nous, 46: 265–88.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. 2007. Without Justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Unger, P. 1975. Ignorance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 1994. ‘The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 44: 65–73.Google Scholar