How to Argue for Pragmatic Encroachment

Synthese (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Purists think that changes in our practical interests can’t affect what we know unless those changes are truth-relevant with respect to the propositions in question. Impurists disagree. They think changes in our practical interests can affect what we know even if those changes aren’t truth-relevant with respect to the propositions in question. I argue that impurists are right, but for the wrong reasons, since they haven’t appreciated the best argument for their own view. Together with “Minimalism and the Limits of Warranted Assertability Maneuvers,” “The Pragmatic Encroachment Debate,” and “Anti-Intellectualism” (below), this paper constitutes my attempt to refute the entire pragmatic encroachment debate. As I show in this paper, there is an argument for impurism sitting in plain sight that is considerably more plausible than any extant argument for pragmatism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ROEHTA
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-03-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Knowledge in an Uncertain World.Fantl, Jeremy & McGrath, Matthew
.Williamson, Timothy
Knowledge and Action.Hawthorne, John & Stanley, Jason

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2019-03-06

Total views
165 ( #24,924 of 50,282 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #16,036 of 50,282 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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