Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 14, pp 2835–2851

Concessive knowledge-attributions: fallibilism and gradualism

Article

Abstract

Any knowledge-fallibilist needs to solve the conceptual problem posed by concessive knowledge-attributions (such as ‘I know that p, but possibly not-p’). These seem to challenge the coherence of knowledge-fallibilism. This paper defuses that challenge via a gradualist refinement of what Fantl and McGrath (2009) call weak epistemic fallibilism.

Keywords

Fallibilism Knowledge Concessive knowledge-attribution Jeremy Fantl Matthew McGrath Gradualism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cohen S. (1988) How to be a fallibilist. In: Tomberlin J. (Ed) Philosophical perspectives, 2: Epistemology. Ridgeview Publishing, Atascadero, CA, pp 91–123Google Scholar
  2. Dodd D. (2010) Confusion about concessive knowledge attributions. Synthese 172: 381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dougherty T. (2011) Fallibilism. In: Bernecker S., Pritchard D. (eds) The Routledge companion to epistemology. Routledge, New York, pp 131–143Google Scholar
  4. Dougherty T., Rysiew P. (2009) Fallibilism, epistemic possibility, and concessive knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78: 123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dougherty T., Rysiew P. (2011) Clarity about concessive knowledge attributions: Reply to Dodd. Synthese 181: 395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fantl J., McGrath M. (2009) Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman R. (1981) Fallibilism and knowing that one knows. The Philosophical Review 90: 266–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hetherington S. (2001) Good knowledge, bad knowledge: On two dogmas of epistemology. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hetherington S. (2011) How to know: A practicalist conception of knowledge. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kvanvig J. L. (2003) The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis D. (1996) Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDowell J. (2008) The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument. In: Haddock A., Macpherson F. (eds) Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 376–389Google Scholar
  13. Reed B. (2010) A defense of stable invariantism. Noûs 44: 224–244Google Scholar
  14. Schaffer J. (2005) Contrastive knowledge. In: Hawthorne J., Gendler T. (eds) Oxford studies in epistemology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 237–271Google Scholar
  15. Stanley J. (2005a) Fallibilism and concessive knowledge attributions. Analysis 65: 126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stanley J. (2005b) Knowledge and practical interests. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations