View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

18 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
  1. LA EPISTEMOLOGÍA DEL RIESGO Y LA RELACIÓN CIENCIA-FILOSOFÍA.Miguel Acosta - 2014 - Naturaleza y Libertad (3):25-55.
    Los sótanos del universo plantea la necesidad de cambiar la epistemología del conocimiento apodíctico científico-filosófico basado en la certidumbre por la “epistemología del riesgo”. Asimismo, sugiere un mayor acercamiento entre ciencia y filosofía para superar la actual confusión y estancamiento que afectan a estos saberes. Este artículo analiza ambos temas. -/- Los Sótanos del Universo proposes the necessity of changing the epistemology of apodictic scientific-philosophical knowledge, based on certainty, for the “epistemology of risk”. Furthermore, it suggests a better approach between (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. "Recent Work in Virtue Epistemology".Guy Axtell - 1997 - American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1):1--27.
    This article traces a growing interest among epistemologists in the intellectuals of epistemic virtues. These are cognitive dispositions exercised in the formation of beliefs. Attempts to give intellectual virtues a central normative and/or explanatory role in epistemology occur together with renewed interest in the ethics/epistemology analogy, and in the role of intellectual virtue in Aristotle's epistemology. The central distinction drawn here is between two opposed forms of virtue epistemology, virtue reliabilism and virtue responsibilism. The article develops the shared and distinctive (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   37 citations  
  3. Knowledge, Hope, and Fallibilism.Matthew A. Benton - forthcoming - Synthese:1-17.
    Hope, in its propositional construction "I hope that p," is compatible with a stated chance for the speaker that not-p. On fallibilist construals of knowledge, knowledge is compatible with a chance of being wrong, such that one can know that p even though there is an epistemic chance for one that not-p. But self-ascriptions of propositional hope that p seem to be incompatible, in some sense, with self-ascriptions of knowing whether p. Data from conjoining hope self-ascription with outright assertions, with (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Knowledge, Despite Evidence to the Contrary.Rodrigo Borges - forthcoming - In Rodrigo Borges, Branden Fitelson & Cherie Braden (eds.), Knowledge, Scepticism, and Defeat.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Das Kontingenzpostulat der Wahrheit.Gregor Damschen - 2005 - Hegel-Jahrbuch 7:320-325.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. How to Be an Infallibilist.Julien Dutant - 2016 - Philosophical Issues 26 (1):148-171.
    When spelled out properly infallibilism is a viable and even attractive view. Because it has long been summary dismissed, however, we need a guide on how to properly spell it out. The guide has to fulfil four tasks. The first two concern the nature of knowledge: to argue that infallible belief is necessary, and that it is sufficient, for knowledge. The other two concern the norm of belief: to argue that knowledge is necessary, and that it is sufficient, for justified (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7. A Noncontextualist Account of Contextualist Linguistic Data.Mylan Engel Jr - 2005 - Acta Analytica 20 (2):56-79.
    The paper takes as its starting point the observation that people can be led to retract knowledge claims when presented with previously ignored error possibilities, but offers a noncontextualist explanation of the data. Fallibilist epistemologies are committed to the existence of two kinds of Kp -falsifying contingencies: (i) Non-Ignorable contingencies [NI-contingencies] and (ii) Properly-Ignorable contingencies [PI-contingencies]. For S to know that p, S must be in an epistemic position to rule out all NI-contingencies, but she need not be able to (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. Antiskeptical Conditionals.Theodore J. Everett - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (3):505–536.
    Empirical knowledge exists in the form of antiskeptical conditionals, which are propositions like [if I am not undetectably deceived, then I am holding a pen]. Such conditionals, despite their trivial appearance, have the same essential content as the categorical propositions that we usually discuss, and can serve the same functions in science and practical reasoning. This paper sketches out two versions of a general response to skepticism that employs these conditionals. The first says that our ordinary knowledge attributions can safely (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Two-Context Probabilism and the Dissolution of the 'Lottery' Problem.Gregor Flock - manuscript
    In this paper it will be attempted to dissolve the lottery problem based on fallibilism, probabilism and the introduction of a so far widely neglected second context of knowledge. First, it will be argued that the lottery problem is actually an exemplification of the much wider Humean "future knowledge problem" (ch. 1). Two types of inferences and arguments will be examined, compared and evaluated in respect to their ability to fittingly describe the thought processes behind lottery/future knowledge propositions (ch. 2). (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Skepticism and Contextualism.Michael Hannon - 2017 - In Jonathan Ichikawa (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. Routledge. pp. 131--144.
    According to some powerful skeptical arguments, we know almost nothing. Contextualist theories of knowledge ascriptions have been developed with an eye toward resisting skepticism. Have the contextualists succeeded? After briefly outlining their view, I will consider whether contextualism about knowledge ascriptions provides a satisfactory response to one of the most popular and influential forms of skepticism. I conclude with some questions for the contextualist. As we’ll see, the effectiveness of the contextualist solution to skepticism is far from settled.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. A Comprehensive Theory of Induction and Abstraction, Part I.Cael L. Hasse - manuscript
    I present a solution to the epistemological or characterisation problem of induction. In part I, Bayesian Confirmation Theory (BCT) is discussed as a good contender for such a solution but with a fundamental explanatory gap (along with other well discussed problems); useful assigned probabilities like priors require substantive degrees of belief about the world. I assert that one does not have such substantive information about the world. Consequently, an explanation is needed for how one can be licensed to act as (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Über den Einwand einer anderen möglichen Vernunft.Geert Keil - 2003 - In Dietrich Böhler, Matthias Kettner & Gunnar Skirbekk (eds.), Reflexion und Verantwortung. Auseinandersetzungen mit Karl-Otto Apel. Suhrkamp. pp. 65-82.
    Die Transzendentalpragmatik beansprucht, jeden beliebigen Opponenten, der bestimmte nichtverwerfbare Präsuppositionen des Argumentierens bestreitet, eines performativen Selbstwiderspruchs überführen zu können. Die Diagnose performativer Widersprüche ist indes theoretisch voraussetzungsreich, denn sie findet in einem begrifflichen Rahmen statt, der sich aus nichttrivialen sprechakt-, rationalitäts-, bedeutungs- und argumentationstheoretischen Annahmen zusammensetzt. Das Argument einer anderen möglichen Vernunft ist gegen den Letztbegründungsanspruch der Transzendentalpragmatik gerichtet: Was heute als ein performativer Widerspruch zählt, mag aus der Perspektive einer anderen möglichen Vernunft keiner mehr sein. Im Beitrag wird die (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. A Priori Conjectural Knowledge in Physics: The Comprehensibility of the Universe.Nicholas Maxwell - 2005 - In Michael Veber & Michael Shaffer (eds.), What Place for the A Priori? Chicago: Open Court. pp. 211-240.
    In this paper I argue for a priori conjectural scientific knowledge about the world. Physics persistently only accepts unified theories, even though endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals are always available. This persistent preference for unified theories, against empirical considerations, means that physics makes a substantial, persistent metaphysical assumption, to the effect that the universe has a (more or less) unified dynamic structure. In order to clarify what this assumption amounts to, I solve the problem of what it means (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. McCall Pragmatic Epistemology Presentation.Bradford McCall - manuscript
    This is a presentation on Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmatic philosophy, and the ay that it functions in his conception of epistemology.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Warrant Does Entail Truth.Andrew Moon - 2012 - Synthese 184 (3):287-297.
    Let ‘warrant’ denote whatever precisely it is that makes the difference between knowledge and mere true belief. A current debate in epistemology asks whether warrant entails truth, i.e., whether (Infallibilism) S’s belief that p is warranted only if p is true. The arguments for infallibilism have come under considerable and, as of yet, unanswered objections. In this paper, I will defend infallibilism. In Part I, I advance a new argument for infallibilism; the basic outline is as follows. Suppose fallibilism is (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  16. At the Threshold of Knowledge.Daniel Rothschild & Levi Spectre - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (2):449-460.
    We explore consequences of the view that to know a proposition your rational credence in the proposition must exceed a certain threshold. In other words, to know something you must have evidence that makes rational a high credence in it. We relate such a threshold view to Dorr et al.’s :277–287, 2014) argument against the principle they call fair coins: “If you know a coin won’t land tails, then you know it won’t be flipped.” They argue for rejecting fair coins (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17. Naturalism, Fallibilism, and the a Priori.Lisa Warenski - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 142 (3):403-426.
    This paper argues that a priori justification is, in principle, compatible with naturalism—if the a priori is understood in a way that is free of the inessential properties that, historically, have been associated with the concept. I argue that empirical indefeasibility is essential to the primary notion of the a priori ; however, the indefeasibility requirement should be interpreted in such a way that we can be fallibilist about apriori-justified claims. This fallibilist notion of the a priori accords with the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  18. Possibly False Knowledge.Alex Worsnip - 2015 - Journal of Philosophy 112 (5):225-246.
    Many epistemologists call themselves ‘fallibilists’. But many philosophers of language hold that the meaning of epistemic usages of ‘possible’ ensures a close knowledge- possibility link : a subject’s utterance of ‘it’s possible that not-p’ is true only if the subject does not know that p. This seems to suggest that whatever the core insight behind fallibilism is, it can’t be that a subject could have knowledge which is, for them, possibly false. I argue that, on the contrary, subjects can have (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations