Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 2, pp 391–401 | Cite as

No need to know

  • Matthew FriseEmail author


I introduce and defend an argument against the popular view that anything falling short of knowledge falls short in value. The nature of belief and cognitive psychological research on memory, I claim, support the argument. I also show that not even the most appealing mode of knowledge is distinctively valuable.


Value of knowledge Knowledge Position to know Dispositional belief Memory 



For helpful comments and conversation I thank Earl Conee, Brian Cutter, Trent Dougherty, John Greco, Jon Kvanvig, Jon Matheson, Kevin McCain, Andrew Moon, an anonymous referee, and an audience at the 2015 Southern Epistemology Conference. I wrote this paper while supported by a grant from the Templeton Religious Trust. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Templeton Religious Trust.


  1. Bergmann, M. (2005). Defeaters and higher-level requirements. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55(220), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernecker, S. (2008). The metaphysics of memory. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BonJour, L. (2010). The myth of knowledge. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter, J. A., Jarvis, B., & Rubin, K. (2013). Knowledge and the value of cognitive ability. Synthese, 190(17), 3715–3729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conee, E. (2005). The comforts of home. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 7(2), 444–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. David, M., & Warfield, T. A. (2008). Knowledge-closure and skepticism. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. DePaul, M. (2009). Ugly analyses and value. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frise, M. (2015). Epistemology of memory. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  10. Frise, M. (manuscript). Eliminating the problem of stored beliefs.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman, A. (2011). Toward a synthesis of reliabilism and evidentialism? or: Evidentialism’s troubles, reliabilism’s rescue package. In T. Dougherty (Ed.), Evidentialism and its discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Huemer, M. (1999). The problem of memory knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 80(4), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kvanvig, J. (2003). The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kvanvig, J. (2009). Responses to Critics. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kvanvig, J. (2014). Rationality and reflection: How to think about what to think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michaelian, K. (2011). Generative memory. Philosophical Psychology, 24(3), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moser, P. K. (1989). Knowledge and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Olsson, E. J. (2007). Reliabilism, stability, and the value of knowledge. American Philosophical Quarterly, 44(4), 343–355.Google Scholar
  19. Pritchard, D. (2007). Recent work on epistemic value. American Philosophical Quarterly, 44(2), 85–110.Google Scholar
  20. Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge and understanding. In D. Pritchard, A. Miller, & A. Haddock (Eds.), The nature and value of knowledge: Three investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 362, 773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations