Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:37:18.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UNREFLECTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2014

Christoph Kelp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Virtue epistemological accounts of knowledge claim that knowledge is a species of a broader normative category, to wit of success from ability. Fake Barn cases pose a difficult problem for such accounts. In structurally analogous but non-epistemic cases, the agents attain the relevant success from ability. If knowledge is just another form of success from ability, the pressure is on to treat Fake Barn cases as cases of knowledge. The challenge virtue epistemology faces is to explain the intuitive lack of knowledge in Fake Barn cases, whilst holding on to the core claim that knowledge is success from ability. Ernest Sosa's version of virtue epistemology promises to rise to this challenge. Sosa distinguishes two types of knowledge, animal knowledge and reflective knowledge. He argues that while animal knowledge is present in Fake Barn cases, reflective knowledge is absent and ventures to explain the intuition of ignorance by the absence of reflective knowledge. This paper argues that Sosa's treatment of Fake Barn cases fails as it commits Sosa to a number of highly counterintuitive results elsewhere in epistemology.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 411 - 422
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

Chisholm, R. 1966. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. 1969. ‘Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.’ Journal of Philosophy, 66: 829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, E. 1963. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ Analysis, 23: 121–3.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–91.Google Scholar
Greco, J. 2003. ‘Knowledge as Credit for True Belief.’ In DePaul, M. and Zagzebski, L. (eds), Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, pp. 111–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. 2007. ‘The Purpose of Knowledge and the Nature of Ability.’ Philosophical Issues, 17: 57–69.Google Scholar
Greco, J. 2010a. Achieving Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. 2010b. ‘The Value Problem.’ In Pritchard, D. and Bernecker, S. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. 1999. ‘Knowing Failably.’ Journal of Philosophy, 96: 565–87.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. 2009. ‘Knowledge and Safety.’ Journal of Philosophical Research, 34: 21–31.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2008. ‘Greco on Knowledge: Virtues, Contexts, Achievements.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 58: 437–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2012. ‘Anti-luck Virtue Epistemology.’ Journal of Philosophy, 109: 247–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D., Millar, A. and Haddock, A. 2010. The Nature and Value of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. 2002. ‘Reliability and the Value of Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2007. A Virtue Epistemology. Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2010. ‘How Competence Matters in Epistemology.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 465–75.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2011. Knowing Full-Well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar