The Impossibility of Mere Animal Knowledge for Reflective Subjects
- 62 Downloads
In this paper we give reasons to think that reflective epistemic subjects cannot possess mere animal knowledge. To do so we bring together literature on defeat and higher-order evidence with literature on the distinction between animal knowledge and reflective knowledge. We then defend our argument from a series of possible objections.
- Coates, A. (2012). Rational epistemic akrasia. American Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 113–124.Google Scholar
- Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldman, A. (2011). ‘Reliabilism’. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/reliabilism/.
- Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of knowledge. Boulder and London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Moon, A. Forthcoming. How to use cognitive faculties you never knew you had. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
- Nagel, J. (2016). Knoweldge and reliability. In H. Kornblith & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Alvin Goldman and his critics (pp. 237–256). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Plantinga, A. (1996). Respondeo. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.), Warrant in contemporary epistemology. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
- Sosa, E. (2007). Reflective knowledge: Apt belief and reflective knowledge (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Titelbaum, M. (2015). Rationality’s fixed point (or: in defense of right reason). In Gendler and Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology, Vol. 5.Google Scholar