Knowledge and cancelability
Synthese:1-9 (forthcoming)
Abstract
Keith DeRose and Stewart Cohen object to the fallibilist strand of pragmatic invariantism regarding knowledge ascriptions that it is committed to non-cancelable pragmatic implications. I show that this objection points us to an asymmetry about which aspects of the conveyed content of knowledge ascriptions can be canceled: we can cancel those aspects that ascribe a lesser epistemic standing to the subject but not those that ascribe a better or perfect epistemic standing. This situation supports the infallibilist strand of pragmatic invariantism according to which knowledge semantically requires absolute certainty but this claim is often pragmatically weakened: it turns out that exactly those aspects of the conveyed content are cancelable that this view claims are pragmatic. I also argue that attributor contextualism and relativism do not have an alternative explanation of this phenomenon.
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
LOSKAC
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-04-22
View other versions
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-04-22
Total views
140 ( #32,780 of 56,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #10,589 of 56,988 )
2020-04-22
Total views
140 ( #32,780 of 56,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #10,589 of 56,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.