Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:22:39.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A theory-based epistemology of modality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Bob Fischer
Bob Fischer*
Affiliation:
Texas State University, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We have some justified beliefs about modal matters. A modal epistemology should explain what’s involved in our having that justification. Given that we’re realists about modality, how should we expect that explanation to go? In the first part of this essay, I suggest an answer to this question based on an analogy with games. Then, I outline a modal epistemology that fits with that answer. According to a theory-based epistemology of modality, you justifiably believe that p if (a) you justifiably believe a theory that says that p and (b) you believe p on the basis of that theory.

Keywords

Modalitymodal epistemologyBas van Fraassensemantic view of theoriesmental modelsconceivability
Type
Critical Notice
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 228 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David. 1996. The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DePaul, Michael R., and Ramsey, William. 1998. Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Fischer, Robert William. 2012. “Modal Knowledge, in Theory.” Southwest Philosophy Review 28: 227–235. 10.5840/swphilreview201228123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Bob. 2015. “Theory Selection in Modal Epistemology.” American Philosophical Quarterly 52(3): 289–304.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Stevens, Albert L.. 1983. Mental Models, Cognitive Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1979. Understanding Scientific Theories. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Hale, Bob. 2003. “Knowledge of Possibility and of Necessity.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) 103: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Bob. 2013. Necessary Beings. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, W. D. 1988. The Engines of the Soul. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2004. “The History of Mental Models.” In Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, edited by Manktelow, K. and Chung, M. C., 179–212. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Colin. 2008. “An Ideal Solution to Disputes about Multiply Realized Kinds.” Philosophical Studies 140(2): 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kung, Peter. 2010. “Imagining as a Guide to Possibility.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 620–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, Felipe. Forthcoming. “From Modal Skepticism to Modal Empiricism.” In Modal Epistemology after Rationalism, edited by Fischer, Bob and Leon, Felipe. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 1994. Inference to the Best Explanation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth Anne. 1994. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2012. “What is the Source of Our Knowledge of Modal Truths?” Mind 121: 919–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Shaun. 2006. “Imaginative Blocks and Impossibility: An Essay on Modal Psychology.” In The Architecture of the Imagination, edited by Nichols, Shaun, 237–256. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy. 2008. Theism and Ultimate Explanation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. 1999. Being Known. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1979. Mathematics, Matter, and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca-Royes, Sonia. 2011. “Modal Knowledge and Counterfactual Knowledge.” Logique Et Analyse 54(216): 537–552.Google Scholar
Roca-Royes, Sonia. Forthcoming. “Similarity and Possibility: An Epistemology of De Re Possibility for Concrete Entities.” In Modal Epistemology after Rationalism, edited by Fischer, Bob and Leon, Felipe. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1977. The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1989. The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1993. Models and Methods in the Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 1989. The Structure of Biological Theories. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter. 1998. “Modal Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 92: 67–84.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar