Synthese

, Volume 189, Issue 2, pp 353–372

Scepticism, perceptual knowledge, and doxastic responsibility

Article

Abstract

Arguments for scepticism about perceptual knowledge are often said to have intuitively plausible premises. In this discussion I question this view in relation to an argument from ignorance and argue that the supposed persuasiveness of the argument depends on debatable background assumptions about knowledge or justification. A reasonable response to scepticism has to show there is a plausible epistemological perspective that can make sense of our having perceptual knowledge. I present such a perspective. In order give a more satisfying response to scepticism, we need also to consider the standing of background beliefs. This is required since the recognitional abilities that enable us to have perceptual knowledge are informed by, or presuppose, a picture or conception of the world the correctness of which we have not ascertained. The question is how, in the face of this, to make sense of responsible belief-formation. In addressing this problem I make a suggestion about the standing of certain crucial beliefs linking appearances with membership of kinds.

Keywords

Scepticism Perceptual knowledge Recognitional abilities Justified belief Background beliefs Doxastic responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1946/1979). Other minds. The Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 20, 148–187; 1946 (Reprinted in Austin’s Philosophical papers (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979 to which page references refer).Google Scholar
  2. Bonjour L. (1980) Externalist theories of empirical knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breuckner A. (1994) The structure of the skeptical argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen S. (2002) Basic knowledge and the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeRose K. (1995) Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review 104: 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dretske F. (1970) Epistemic operators. The Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldman A. I. (1986) Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Greco, J. (2007). The nature of ability and the purpose of knowledge. In Philosophical issues, 17: The metaphysics of epistemology (pp. 57–69).Google Scholar
  9. Greco J. (2008) Skepticism about the external world. In: Greco J (eds) The Oxford handbook of skepticism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 108–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hookway C. (1990) Scepticism. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hume, D. (1965). In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. McDowell, J. (1994/1998). Knowledge by hearsay. In B. K. Matilal & A. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Knowing from words: Western and Indian philosophical analyses of understanding and testimony (pp. 195–224). Dordrecht: Kluwer (Reprinted in J. McDowell (1998), pp. 414–443. Page references are to the reprint.).Google Scholar
  13. Millar A. (1991) Reasons and experience. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millar A. (2000) The scope of perceptual knowledge. Philosophy 75: 73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Millar A. (2007a) What the disjunctivist is right about. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 176–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millar, A. (2007b). The state of knowing. In Philosophical issues, 17: The metaphysics of epistemology (pp. 179–196).Google Scholar
  17. Millar, A. (2008a). Disjunctivism and skepticism. In J. Greco (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of skepticism (pp. 581–604). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Millar A. (2008b) Perceptual-recognitional abilities and perceptual knowledge. In: Haddock A., Macpherson F. E. (eds) Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 330–347Google Scholar
  19. Millar A. (2009) What is it that cognitive abilities are abilities to do?. Acta Analytica 24: 223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Millar A. (2010) Knowing from being told. In: Haddock A., Millar A., Pritchard D. (eds) Social epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Millar A. (2011a) Knowledge and reasons for belief. In: Reisner A., Steglich-Peterson A. (eds) Reasons for belief. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Millar, A. (2011b). How visual perception yields reasons for belief. In Philosophical issues, 21: The epistemology of perception (pp. 332–351).Google Scholar
  23. Millikan R. (2000) On clear and confused ideas: An essay about substance concepts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore, G. E. (1925). A defence of common sense. In J. H. Muirhead (Ed.), Contemporary British philosophy. Second Series (Reprinted in Moore’s Philosophical papers (pp. 32–59). London: George Allen & Unwin, 1959).Google Scholar
  25. Pollock J. (1987) Contemporary theories of knowledge. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pritchard D., Millar A., Haddock A. (2010) The nature and value of knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pryor J. (2000) The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs 34: 517–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quine W. V. (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Sosa E. (2007) A virtue epistemology: Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Sosa E. (2009) Reflective knowledge: Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein L. (1969) On certainty. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright C. (2002) (Anti-)sceptics: Simple and subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 330–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations