Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 157–173 | Cite as

Single premise deduction and risk

  • Maria Lasonen-Aarnio
Article

Abstract

It is tempting to think that multi premise closure creates a special class of paradoxes having to do with the accumulation of risks, and that these paradoxes could be escaped by rejecting the principle, while still retaining single premise closure. I argue that single premise deduction is also susceptible to risks. I show that what I take to be the strongest argument for rejecting multi premise closure is also an argument for rejecting single premise closure. Because of the symmetry between the principles, they come as a package: either both will have to be rejected or both will have to be revised.

Keywords

Closure Knowledge Deduction 

References

  1. Brueckner, A. (1998). Deductive closure principles. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http//www.rep.routledge.com/article/P011.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, L. (1895). What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind, 4(14), 278–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. David, M., & Warfield, T. (forthcoming A). Closure principles and skeptical arguments. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: new essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. David, M., & Warfield, T. (forthcoming B). Six possible counterexamples to one or two epistemic closure principles.Google Scholar
  5. DeRose, K. (1999). Introduction: Responding to scepticism. In K. DeRose & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Scepticism––a contemporary reader (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dretske, F. (2005). The case against closure. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 13–26). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hawthorne, J., & Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (forthcoming). Knowledge and objective chance. In P. Greenough & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hintikka, J. (1970). Knowledge, belief, and logical consequence. Ajatus, 32, 32–47.Google Scholar
  11. Kyburg, H. (1970). Conjunctivitis. In M. Swain (Ed.), Induction, acceptance, and rational belief (pp. 55–82). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1996) Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Makinson, D. C. (1965). The paradox of the preface. Analysis, 25, 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Unger, P. (1968). An analysis of factual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vogel, J. (1990). Are there counterexamples to the closure principle? In M. Roth & G. Ross (Eds.), Doubting: Contemporary perspectives on scepticism (pp. 13–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merton CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations