Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: an Empirical Study
In defending his interest-relative account of knowledge, Jason Stanley relies heavily on intuitions about several bank cases. We experimentally test the empirical claims that Stanley seems to make concerning our common-sense intuitions about these cases. Additionally, we test the empirical claims that Jonathan Schaffer seems to make, regarding the salience of an alternative, in his critique of Stanley. Our data indicate that neither raising the possibility of error nor raising stakes moves most people from attributing knowledge to denying it. However, the raising of stakes (but not alternatives) does affect the level of confidence people have in their attributions of knowledge. We argue that our data impugn what both Stanley and Schaffer claim our common-sense judgments about such cases are.
- Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: an Empirical Study
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Volume 1, Issue 2 , pp 265-273
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of California, Santa Barbara, 5631 South Hall, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-3090, USA
- 2. Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, 6035 Thornton Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755-3692, USA
- 3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, 6207 Moore Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755-3692, USA