Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:26:40.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge is Believing Something Because It's True

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2020

Tomas Bogardus Open the ORCID record for Tomas Bogardus [Opens in a new window]  and
Will Perrin
Tomas Bogardus*
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA
Will Perrin
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modalists think that knowledge requires forming your belief in a “modally stable” way: using a method that wouldn't easily go wrong (i.e. safety), or using a method that wouldn't have given you this belief had it been false (i.e. sensitivity). Recent Modalist projects from Justin Clarke-Doane and Dan Baras defend a principle they call “Modal Security,” roughly: if evidence undermines your belief, then it must give you a reason to doubt the safety or sensitivity of your belief. Another recent Modalist project from Carlotta Pavese and Bob Beddor defends “Modal Virtue Epistemology”: knowledge is a belief that is maximally modally robust across “normal” worlds. We'll offer new objections to these recent Modalist projects. We will then argue for a rival view, Explanationism: knowing something is believing it because it's true. We will show how Explanationism offers a better account of undermining defeaters than Modalism, and a better account of knowledge.

Keywords

Epistemologyknowledgemodal securitysensitivitysafetyexplanationismexplanationjustificationGettier cases
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 178 - 196
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Achinstein, P. (1983). The Nature of Explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alspector-Kelly, M. (2006). ‘Knowledge Externalism.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bealer, G. (1998). ‘Intuition and the Autonomy of Philosophy.’ In DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry, 201–40. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. (2004). ‘The Origins of Modal Error.’ Dialectica 58(1), 11–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. and Black, T. (2012). The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, B and Pavese, C. (Forthcoming). ‘Modal Virtue Epistemology.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Bengson, J. (2015). ‘Grasping the Third Realm.’ In Gender, T. Szabo and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 5, pp. 1–38. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Black, T. (2008). ‘Defending a Sensitive neo-Moorean Invariantism.’ In Hendricks, V.F. and Pritchard, D. (eds), New Waves in Epistemology, pp. 8–27. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Black, T. and Murphy, P. (2007). ‘In Defense of Sensitivity.’ Synthese 154(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogardus, T. (2014). ‘Knowledge under Threat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88(2), 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogardus, T. and Marxen, C. (2014). ‘Yes, Safety is in Danger.’ Philosophia 42(2), 321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. (1998). In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). ‘Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.’ Philosophy Compass 4(5), 756–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2016). Intuition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. (2012). ‘Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge.’ Ethics 122 (2), 313–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. (2014). ‘Moral Epistemology: The Mathematics Analogy.’ Noûs 48(2), 238–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. (2015). ‘Justification and Explanation in Mathematics and Morality.’ In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. (2016). ‘What Is the Benacerraf Problem?’ In Pataut, F. (ed.), New Perspectives on the Philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, Objects, Infinity, pp. 17–43. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. (Forthcoming). ‘Debunking Arguments: Mathematics, Logic, and Modal Security.’ In Richards, R. and Ruse, M. (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, J. and Baras, D. (Forthcoming). ‘Modal Security.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1995). ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem.’ Philosophical Review 104(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1970). ‘Epistemic Operators.’ Journal of Philosophy 67, 1007–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1971). ‘Conclusive Reasons.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraci, D. (2019). ‘Groundwork for an Explanationist Account of Epistemic Coincidence.’ Philosopher's Imprint 19(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (1969). ‘Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.’ Journal of Philosophy 66(23), 829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (1976). ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy 73, 771–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (1984). ‘An Explanatory Analysis of Knowledge.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 21, 101–8.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (1988). Empirical Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J.J. (2011). ‘Quantifiers, Knowledge, and Counterfactuals.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82, 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, C. (2006). ‘Knowledge and Explanation.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36(2), 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killoren, D. (2010). ‘Moral Intuitions, Reliability, and Disagreement.’ Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, D. (2019). ‘Debunking Arguments.’ Philosophy Compass 14(12), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, D. and Locke, D. (Forthcoming). ‘Against Minimalist Responses to Moral Debunking Arguments.’ In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2017). ‘Truth, Knowledge, and the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law.’ Synthese 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1608-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luper-Foy, S. (1984). ‘The Epistemic Predicament: Knowledge, Nozickian Tracking, and Scepticism.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62(1), 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merricks, T. (1995). ‘Warrant Entails Truth.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55(4), 841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, A. (2017). ‘Disagreements in Moral Intuition as Defeaters.’ Philosophical Quarterly 67(267), 282–302.Google Scholar
Moon, A. (2012). ‘Warrant Does Entail Truth.’ Synthese 184(3), 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. (2002). ‘S Knows that P.’ Noûs 36, 663–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. (Forthcoming). ‘The Disvalue of Knowledge.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2007). ‘Anti-Luck Epistemology.’ Synthese 158(3), 277–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2009). ‘Safety-Based Epistemology: Whither Now?’ Journal of Philosophical Research 34, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pust, J. (2000). ‘Against Explanationist Skepticism regarding Philosophical Intuitions.’ Philosophical Studies 106(3), 227–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pust, J. (2017). ‘Intuition.’ In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/intuition/.Google Scholar
Rieber, S. (1998). ‘Skepticism and Contrastive Explanation.’ Noûs 32, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roush, S. (2005). Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, R.M. (1997). ‘Easy Possibilities.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57, 907–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999 a). ‘How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.’ In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology, pp. 141–54. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999 b). ‘How Must Knowledge be Modally Related to What is Known?’ Philosophical Topics 26(1/2), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007). A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. (2011). Depth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, N. (1984). ‘Moral Explanations.’ In Copp, D. and Zimmerman, D. (eds), Morality, Reason and Truth. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, S. (1993). ‘The Gettier Problem.’ Analysis 53(3), 156–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2010). ‘You Just Believe that Because...’ Philosophical Perspectives 24, 573–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1994). ‘The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.’ Philosophical Quarterly 44(174), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar