At the threshold of knowledge

Article
  • 220 Downloads

Abstract

We explore consequences of the view that to know a proposition your rational credence in the proposition must exceed a certain threshold. In other words, to know something you must have evidence that makes rational a high credence in it. We relate such a threshold view to Dorr et al.’s (Philosophical Studies 170(2):277–287, 2014) argument against the principle they call fair coins: “If you know a coin won’t land tails, then you know it won’t be flipped.” They argue for rejecting fair coins because it leads to a pervasive skepticism about knowledge of the future. We argue that the threshold view of evidence and knowledge gives independent grounds to reject fair coins.

Keywords

Evidence Knowledge Thresholds Tolerance principle Probability Rational-belief Inference Epistemological skepticism about the future 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Matti Eklund, Anandi Hattiangadi, Harvey Lederman, and an anonymous referee for this journal for their invaluable comments. This paper was presented at the Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University, Sweden. Spectre’s research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 463/12). Rothschild’s research was supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (Grant Nos. AH/M009602/1 and AH/ N001877/1).

References

  1. Bacon, A. (2014). Give your knowledge half a chance. Philosophical Studies, 2, 1–25.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, S. (1987). Knowledge, context, and social standards. Synthese, 73(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. (1988). How to be a fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 91–123, 1988. ISSN 15208583, 17582245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2214070.
  4. Cohen, S. (2016). Theorizing about the epistemic. Inquiry, 59(7–8), 839–857. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2016.1208903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorr, C., Goodman, J., & Hawthorne, J. (2014). Knowing against the odds. Philosophical Studies, 170(2), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dretske, F. (1981). The pragmatic dimension of knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 40(3), 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30, 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hawthorne, J. (2003). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawthorne, J., Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). Belief is weak. Philosophical Studies, 173(5), 1393–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, F. (1979). On assertion and indicative conditionals. Philosophical Review, 88(4), 565–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kripke, S. (2011). Two paradoxes of knowledge. Philosophical troubles: Collected papers Volume 1 (pp. 27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). A puzzle about knowing conditionals. Noûs. doi:10.1111/nous.12183.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, M. (2016). Between probability and certainty: What justifies belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sorensen, R. (1988). Dogmatism, junk knowledge, and conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly, 38, 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Unger, P. K. (1975). Ignorance: A case for scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  18. Williamson, T. (2009). Replies to critics. In D. Pritchard & P. Greenough (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge (pp. 279–384). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yablo, S. (2016). Open knowledge and changing the subject. Philosophical Studies, 1–25, doi:10.1007/s11098-016-0724-1.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.The Open University of IsraelRa’ananaIsrael

Personalised recommendations