, Volume 155, Issue 3, pp 467-479
Date: 31 Aug 2010

Responses to Stoljar, Weatherson and Boghossian

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access
This is an excerpt from the content

I am grateful to Daniel Stoljar, Brian Weatherson and Paul Boghossian for their challenging and illuminating commentaries. They have, in each case, focused on the central issues and raised serious problems for the central claims I was concerned to make in the book. Let me see if I can respond to some of them.

Response to Stoljar

Stoljar is right that my approach to the Knowledge Argument (KA) might be described as a version of what he calls ‘the self-locating (or indexical) response’, but I regard that response more as a strategy than as an argument. The argument that Stoljar describes is something like this: The AA (an argument analogous to the KA that concerns indexical knowledge) seems to be of the same form as the KA, and the premise seems as plausible. But the AA is unpersuasive, so we should find the KA unpersuasive as well. As an argument against the KA, this is pretty lame. A satisfactory response to the AA that rejects its conclusion must say where it goes wrong. But the indexic