Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 7, pp 1789–1806 | Cite as

Higher order ignorance inside the margins

  • Sam CarterEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to the KK-principle, knowledge iterates freely. It has been argued, notably in Greco (J Philos 111:169–197, 2014a), that accounts of knowledge which involve essential appeal to normality are particularly conducive to defence of the KK-principle. The present article evaluates the prospects for employing normality in this role. First, it is argued that the defence of the KK-principle depends upon an implausible assumption about the logical principles governing iterated normality claims. Once this assumption is dropped, counter-instances to the principle can be expected to arise. Second, it is argued that even if the assumption is maintained, there are other logical properties of normality which can be expected to lead to failures of KK. Such failures are noteworthy, since they do not depend on either a margins-for-error principle or safety condition of the kinds Williamson (Mind 101:217–242, 1992; Knowledge and its limits, OUP, Oxford, 2000) appeals to in motivating rejection KK. “Introduction: KK and Being in a Position to Know” Section formulates two versions of the KK-Principle; “Inexact Knowledge and Margins for Error” Section presents a version of Williamson’s margins-for-error argument against it; “Knowledge and Normality” and “Iterated Normality” Sections discuss the defence of the KK-Principle due to Greco (J Philos 111:169–197, 2014a) and show that it is dependent upon the implausible assumption that the logic of normality ascriptions is at least as strong as K4; finally, “Knowledge in Abnormal Conditions” and “Higher-Order Ignorance Inside the Margins” Sections argue that a weakened version of Greco’s constraint on knowledge is plausible and demonstrate that this weakened constraint will, given uncontentious assumptions, systematically generate counter-instances to the KK-principle of a novel kind.

Keywords

Higher-order knowledge KK Positive introspection Iterated knowledge Margins for error Normality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited from helpful discussion with and feedback from Brian Ball, Andy Egan, Juan Sebastian Piñeros Glasscock, Daniel Greco, Alex Roberts, Ginger Schultheis, Timothy Williamson and audiences at Yale, Oxford, and The Joint Session of Mind and the Aristotelian Society 2017.

References

  1. Asher, N., & Morreau, M. (1995). What some generic sentences mean. In G. P. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 300–339). Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boutilier, C. (1994). Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68, 87–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Das, N., & Salow, B. (2016). Transparency and the KK-Principle. Noûs, 50, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delgrande, J. (1987). A first-order conditional logic for prototypical properties. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Feldman, R. (1981). Fallibilism and knowing that one knows. Philosophical Review, 90, 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodman, J. (2013). Inexact knowledge without improbable knowledge. Inquiry, 56, 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodman, J., & Salow, B. (2018). Taking a chance on KK. Philosophical Studies, 175, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greco, D. (2014a). Could KK be ok? The Journal of Philosophy, 111, 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greco, D. (2014b). Iteration and fragmentation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88, 656–673.Google Scholar
  11. Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. (2009). Assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Myers-Schulz, B., & Schwitzgebel, E. (2013). Knowing that-P without believing that-P. Noûs, 47, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelkin, D. K. (2000). The lottery paradox, knowledge and rationality. The Philosophical Review, 109, 373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Radford, C. (1966). Knowledge—by examples. Analysis, 27, 1–11.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, M. (2008). Ceteris paribus conditionals and comparative normality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, M. (2010). What else justification could be. Nous, 44, 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stalnaker, R. (2006). On logics of normality and belief. Philosphical Studies, 128, 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stalnaker, R. (2009). On Hawthorne and Magidor on assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R. (2015). Luminosity and the KK-thesis. In Sanford C. Goldberg (Ed.), Externalism, self-knowledge and skepticism (pp. 19–40). Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stampe, D. (1977). Towards a causal theory of linguistic representation. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williamson, T. (1992). Inexact knowledge. Mind, 101, 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  26. Williamson, T. (2013). Gettier cases in epistemic logic. Inquiry, 56, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations