Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:09:45.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT DOES KNOWLEDGE-YIELDING DEDUCTION REQUIRE OF ITS PREMISES?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2014

Federico Luzzi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the principle of Knowledge Counter-Closure (KCC), knowledge-yielding single-premise deduction requires a known premise: if S believes q solely on the basis of deduction from p, and S knows q, then S must know p. Although prima facie plausible, widely accepted, and supported by seemingly compelling motivations, KCC has recently been challenged by cases where S arguably knows q solely on the basis of deduction from p, yet p is false (Warfield 2005; Fitelson 2010) or p is true but not known (Coffman 2008; Luzzi 2010). I explore a view that resolves this tension by abandoning KCC in the light of these challenges, and which acknowledges their force but also their limits. Adopting this view helps identify the epistemic constraints that operate on the premises of knowledge-yielding deduction, clarifies the epistemic role of deduction, and allows us to distil the kernel of truth in the motivations that are standardly taken to support KCC.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 261 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Arnold, A. 2011. ‘Some Evidence is False.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91: 165–72.Google Scholar
Audi, R. 2010. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boyle, M. 2011. ‘Transparent Self-Knowledge.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 85: 223–41.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. 2005. ‘Introspection.’ Philosophical Topics, 33: 79–104.Google Scholar
Byrne, A.. 2011. ‘Transparency, Belief, Intention.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 85: 201–21.Google Scholar
Coffman, E. 2008. ‘Warrant Without Truth?’ Synthese, 162: 173–94.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. 2004. Internalism Defended. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1995. Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. 2010. ‘Strengthening the Case for Knowledge From Falsehood.’ Analysis, 70: 666–9.Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R. 1988. ‘Knowledge and Conditionals.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 157–82.Google Scholar
Klein, P. 2008. ‘Useful False Beliefs.’ In Smith, Q. (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 25–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luzzi, F. 2010. ‘Counter-Closure.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88: 673–83.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. 2001. ‘Highlights of Recent Epistemology.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52: 95–124.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. 1991. ‘‘P, Therefore, P’ Without Circularity.’ Journal of Philosophy, 88: 245–66.Google Scholar
Warfield, T. 2005. ‘Knowledge from Falsehood.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 405–16.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T.. 2000. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar