Skip to main content
Log in

Varieties of failure (of warrant transmission: what else?!)

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the contemporary expanding literature on transmission failure and its connections with issues such as the Closure principle, the nature of perceptual warrant, Moore’s proof of an external world and the effectiveness of Humean scepticism, it has often been assumed that there is just one kind of it: the one made familiar by the writings of Crispin Wright and Martin Davies. Although it might be thought that one kind of failure is more than enough, Davies has recently challenged this view: apparently, there are more ways in heaven and earth that warrant can fail to transmit across valid inference from one (set of) belief(s) to another, than have been dreamt of in philosophy so far. More specifically, Davies thinks that a second kind of transmission failure has to be countenanced. He connects each kind of failure of transmission of warrant with two different kinds of epistemic project, respectively, and with the exploration of whether the current dispute between conservatives such as Wright, and liberals such as Jim Pryor, on the nature of perceptual warrant, would have a bearing on them. I point out why Davies’s second kind of transmission failure is indeed no such thing. I then move on to canvass another kind of transmission failure, different from the one studied by both Wright and Davies, and dependent on an alternative conception of the structure of empirical warrants, which I dub “moderatism”. I then consider how this alternative notion of transmission failure fares with respect to Moore’s proof, its relationship with Wright’s kind of transmission failure and with the Closure principle. In closing, I defend it from criticisms that can be elicited from Pryor’s recent work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avnur, Y. (2011). Closure reconsidered, ms.

  • Beebee H. (2001) Transfer of warrant, begging the question and semantic externalism. Philosophical Quarterly 51(204): 356–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J. (2005) Doubt, circularity and the Moorean response to scepticism. Philosophical Perspectives 19: 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coliva A. (2008) The paradox of Moore’s proof of an external world. The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coliva A. (2010) Moore’s proof and Martin Davies’ epistemic projects. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88(1): 101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coliva A. (2011a) Liberals and conservatives. Is there a (Wittgensteinian) third way?. In: Coliva A. (eds) Knowledge, meaning and mind. Themes from the philosophy of Crispin Wright. Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Coliva A. (2011b) Moderatism, transmission failures, closure and Humean skepticism. In: Zardini E., Dodd D. (eds) Contemporary perspectives on justification and scepticism. Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Coliva A. (2012) Scetticismo. Laterza, Roma-Bari (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies M. (1998) Externalism, architecturalism and epistemic warrant. In: Wright C., Smith B., Macdonald C. (eds) Knowing our own minds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 321–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies M. (2000) Externalism and a priori knowledge. In: Boghossian P., Peacocke C. (eds) New essays on the a priori. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 384–432

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davies M. (2003) The problem of armchair knowledge. In: Nuccetelli S. (eds) New essays on semantic externalism, scepticism and self-knowledge. MIT Press, Boston, MA, pp 23–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies M. (2004) Epistemic entitlement, warrant transmission and easy knowledge. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LXXVIII: 213–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2008). Two purposes of arguing and two epistemic projects. In Ravenscroft, I. (Ed.), Minds, worlds and conditionals: Essays in honour of Frank Jackson (pp. 337–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page reference to the manuscript available at http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/~mdavies/mlepapers.php3.

  • Dretske F. (1970) Epistemic operators. The Journal of Philosophy LXVII(24): 1007–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretske F. (2005) Is knowledge closed under known entailment? The case against closure. In: Steup M., Sosa E. (eds) Contemporary debates in epistemology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, F., & Orlandelli, E. (2010). Moderate neomooreanism, ms.

  • Peacocke C. (2004) The realm of reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor J. (2000) The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs 34: 517–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor J. (2004a) What’s wrong with Moore’s argument?. Philosophical Issues 14: 349–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. (2004b). Is Moore’s argument an example of transmission failure? Retrieved from http://www.jimpryor.net/research/index.html.

  • Pryor, J. (2011). When warrant transmits. In Coliva, A. (Ed.), Knowledge, meaning and mind. Themes from the philosophy of Crispin Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Retrieved from http://www.jimpryor.net/research/index.html.

  • Schiffer S. (2004) Skepticism and the vagaries of justified belief. Philosophical Studies 119(1–2): 161–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silins N. (2005) Transmission failure failure. Philosophical Studies 126(1): 71–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silins N. (2007) Basic justification and the Moorean response to the skeptic. In: Gendler T., Hawthorne J. (eds) Oxford studies in epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 108–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood R. (2012) A priori bootstrapping. In: Casullo A., Thurow J. (eds) The a priori in philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • White R. (2006) Problems for dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 131(3): 525–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (1985) Facts and certainty. Proceedings of the British Academy LXXI: 429–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2000) Cogency and question-begging: Some reflections on McKinsey’s paradox and Putnam’s proof. Philosophical Issues 10: 140–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2002) Anti-sceptics simple and subtle: Moore and McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXV: 330–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2003) Some reflections on the acquisition of warrant by inference. In: Nuccetelli S. (eds) New essays on semantic externalism, scepticism and self-knowledge. MIT Press, Boston, MA, pp 57–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2004) Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)?. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LXXVIII: 167–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2007) The perils of dogmatism. In: Nuccetelli S., Seay G. (eds) Themes from G. E. Moore: New essays in epistemology and ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annalisa Coliva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coliva, A. Varieties of failure (of warrant transmission: what else?!). Synthese 189, 235–254 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0006-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0006-6

Keywords

Navigation