Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 8, pp 1887–1900 | Cite as

In defence of single-premise closure

  • Weng Hong TangEmail author


It’s often thought that the phenomenon of risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure but not for single-premise closure (either with respect to knowledge or with respect to justified belief). But recently, Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter have challenged this thought. Lasonen-Aarnio argues that, insofar as risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure, it poses a similar problem for single-premise closure. For she thinks that, there being such a thing as deductive risk, risk may aggregate over a single premise and the deduction itself. Schechter argues that single-premise closure succumbs to risk aggregation outright. For he thinks that there could be a long sequence of competent single-premise deductions such that, even though we are justified in believing the initial premise of the sequence, intutively, we are not justified in believing the final conclusion. This intuition, Schechter thinks, vitiates single-premise closure. In this paper, I defend single-premise closure against the arguments offered by Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter.


Single-premise closure Multi-premise closure Deduction Knowledge Justification Reasoning 



Thanks to an anonymous reviewer and to the audience at the 2015 Australasian Association of Philosophy Conference for valuable comments. I’ve also benefitted from discussion with Michael Pelczar, Ben Blumson, and the honours students in my epistemology class in 2015. Thanks, in particular, to Bernadette Chin for feedback on a draft of the paper.


  1. Burge, T. (1995). Content preservation. Philosophical Issues, 6, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. The Journal of Philosophy, 67, 1007–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goldman, A. I. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 73, 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kyburg, H. E. (1970). Conjunctivitis. In M. Swain (Ed.), Induction, acceptance, and rational belief (pp. 55–82). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (2008). Single premise deduction and risk. Philosophical Studies, 141, 157–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Makinson, D. C. (1965). The paradox of the preface. Analysis, 25, 205–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nelkin, D. K. (2000). The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality. The Philosophical Review, 109, 373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ryan, S. (1991). The preface paradox. Philosophical Studies, 64, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schechter, J. (2013). Rational self-doubt and the failure of closure. Philosophical Studies, 163, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, M. (2013). Two notions of epistemic risk. Erkenntnis, 78, 1069–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Unger, P. (1968). An analysis of factual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 65, 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wedgwood, R. (2012). Justified inference. Synthese, 189, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williamson, T. (2009). Probability and danger. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 4., 1–35.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations