A Remark on the Bank Cases

Acta Analytica 37 (4):519-529 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Since their formulation by Keith DeRose (1992), the so-called bank cases have played a major role in the discussion about whether knowledge depends on practical factors. According to the proponents of pragmatic encroachment, the proper conclusion to be drawn from the bank cases and similar examples is that knowledge of a proposition _p_ does not supervene on one’s evidence for or against _p_. In my view, this conclusion is ill-founded. The reason is that the bank cases and similar examples suffer from an ambiguity concerning the known proposition — an ambiguity that has so far been overlooked. When this ambiguity is made explicit, it becomes clear that the conclusion does not follow.

Author's Profile

Wolfgang Barz
Goethe University Frankfurt

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-12-08

Downloads
212 (#63,225)

6 months
77 (#49,182)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?