Philosophical Studies

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 73–88 | Cite as

Subjunctivitis

ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Subjunctivitis is the doctrine that what is distinctive about knowledge is essential modal in character, and thus is captured by certain subjunctive conditionals. One principal formulation of subjunctivism invokes a ``sensitivity condition'' (Nozick, De Rose), the other invokes a ``safety condition'' (Sosa). It is shown in detail how defects in the sensitivity condition generate unwanted results, and that the virtues of that condition are merely apparent. The safety condition is untenable also, because it is too easily satisfied. A powerful motivation for adopting subjunctivism would be that it provides a solution to the problem of misleading evidence, but in fact, it does not.

Keywords

Safety Sensitivity Tracking Nozick De Rose Sosa Reliablism Misleading evidence Contextualism Closure Principle Knowledge Induction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bonjour, L. (2005). A version of internalist foundationalism. In L. Bonjour, & E. Sosa (Eds.), Epistemic justification: Internalism vs. externalism, foundations vs. virtues (pp. 5–96). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. De Rose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review, 104, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Rose, K. (1996). Knowledge, assertions, and lotteries. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 568–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dretske, F. (1971). Conclusive reasons. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fumerton, R. (2005). The challenge of refuting skepticism. In M. Steup, & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 85–97). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Goldman, A. (1979). What is justified belief? In G. S. Pappas (Ed.), Justification and knowledge (pp.␣1–23). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow. Nous, 13, 455–476.Google Scholar
  9. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Roush, S. (2006). Tracking truth: Knowledge, evidence, and science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sosa, E. (1999). How must knowledge be modally related to what is known? Philosophical Topics, 26, 373–384.Google Scholar
  12. Sosa, E. (2002). Tracking, competence, and knowledge. In P. Moser (Ed.), Oxford handbook of epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Vogel, J. (2000). Reliabilism leveled. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vogel, J. (1987). Tracking, closure, and inductive knowledge. In S. Luper-Foy (Ed.), The possibility of knowledge. Totowa: N.J. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Wittgenstein, L. (1972). On certainty. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amherst CollegeAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations