Mindreading in Gettier Cases and Skeptical Pressure Cases

In Jessica Brown & Mikkel Gerken (eds.), Knowledge Ascriptions. Oxford University Press (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
To what extent should we trust our natural instincts about knowledge? The question has special urgency for epistemologists who want to draw evidential support for their theories from certain intuitive epistemic assessments while discounting others as misleading. This paper focuses on the viability of endorsing the legitimacy of Gettier intuitions while resisting the intuitive pull of skepticism – a combination of moves that most mainstream epistemologists find appealing. Awkwardly enough, the “good” Gettier intuitions and the “bad” skeptical intuitions seem to be equally strong. This chapter argues that it is not a coincidence that these two types of intuition register with equal force: they are generated by a common mechanism. However, the input to this mechanism is interestingly different in the two types of case, and different in a way that can support the mainstream view that Gettier cases tell us something about knowledge where skeptical intuitions involve systematic error.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
NAGMIG
Revision history
First archival date: 2015-11-21
Latest version: 2 (2015-11-21)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Knowledge in and Out of Contrast.Gerken, Mikkel & Beebe, James R.
Philosophical Expertise Under the Microscope.Egler, Miguel & Ross, Lewis Dylan
Skepticism and the Acquisition of “Knowledge”.Nichols, Shaun & Pinillos, N. Ángel

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2011-05-12

Total views
764 ( #2,942 of 41,462 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
77 ( #6,704 of 41,462 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.