Sensitivity hasn’t got a Heterogeneity Problem - a Reply to Melchior

Philosophia 45 (2):835-841 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In a recent paper, Melchior pursues a novel argumentative strategy against the sensitivity condition. His claim is that sensitivity suffers from a ‘heterogeneity problem:’ although some higher-order beliefs are knowable, other, very similar, higher-order beliefs are insensitive and so not knowable. Similarly, the conclusions of some bootstrapping arguments are insensitive, but others are not. In reply, I show that sensitivity does not treat different higher-order beliefs differently in the way that Melchior states and that while genuine bootstrapping arguments have insensitive conclusions, the cases that Melchior describes as sensitive ‘bootstrapping’ arguments don’t deserve the name, since they are a perfectly good way of getting to know their conclusions. In sum, sensitivity doesn’t have a heterogeneity problem.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WALSHG-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-02-01
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Reliabilism Leveled.Vogel, Jonathan

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Amodal Completion and Knowledge.Helton, Grace & Nanay, Bence

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-11-15

Total views
43 ( #33,510 of 40,654 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #35,102 of 40,654 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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