Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 17, pp 3777–3796 | Cite as

Assertion and safety

Article

Abstract

Safety is a notion familiar to epistemologists principally because of the way in which it has been used in the attempt to cast light on the nature of knowledge. In particular, some have argued that an important constraint on knowledge is that one knows p only if one believes p safely. In this paper, I use safety for a different purpose: to cast light on the nature of assertion. I introduce what I call the safety account of assertion, according to which one asserts p properly only if one asserts p safely. The central idea is that an assertion’s propriety depends on whether one could easily have asserted falsely in a similar case. I argue that the safety account is well motivated, since it neatly explains our intuitions about a wide range of assertions of different kinds. Of particular interest is the fact that the account explains our intuitions about several kinds of assertions which appear to raise problems for well-known rival accounts.

Keywords

Assertion Knowledge Safety Norm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach K., Harnish R. (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Comesaña J. (2005) Unsafe knowledge. Synthese 146: 395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeRose K. (1996) Knowledge, assertion, and lotteries. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 568–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeRose K. (2002) Assertion, knowledge, and context. The Philosophical Review 111: 167–203Google Scholar
  5. Douven I. (2006) Assertion, knowledge, and rational credibility. The Philosophical Review 115: 449–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douven I. (2009) Assertion, Moore, and Bayes. Philosophical Studies 144: 361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudman V. (1992) Probability and assertion. Analysis 52: 204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenough P. (2011) Discrimination and self-knowledge. In: Smithies D., Stoljar D. (Eds.), Introspection and consciousness. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawthorne J. (2004) Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill C., Schechter J. (2007) Hawthorne’s lottery puzzle and the nature of belief. Philosophical Issues 17: 102–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kvanvig J. (2009) Assertion, knowledge, and lotteries. In: Greenough P., Pritchard D. (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kvanvig J. (2011) Norms of assertion. In: Brown J., Cappelen H. (Eds.), Assertion: New philosophical essays. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Lackey J. (1999) Testimonial knowledge and transmission. The Philosophical Quarterly 49: 471–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lackey J. (2007) Norms of assertion. Nous 41: 594–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lackey J. (2008) Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luper S. (1984) The epistemic predicament: Knowledge, nozickian tracking, and skepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62: 26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luper S. (1987) The causal indicator analysis of knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47: 563–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luper S. (2002) Indiscernibility skepticism. In: Luper S. (Ed.), The skeptics. Ashgate Publishing Limited, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  19. Luper S. (2006) Restorative rigging and the safe indication account. Synthese 153: 161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neta R., Rohrbaugh G. (2004) Luminosity and the safety of knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pelling, C. (forthcoming). Assertion and the provision of knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
  22. Pelling, C. (manuscript). Moorean assertions.Google Scholar
  23. Pritchard D. (2005) Epistemic luck. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pritchard D. (2007) Anti-luck epistemology. Synthese 158: 277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pritchard D. (2008) Knowledge, luck, and lotteries. In: Hendricks V., Pritchard D. (Eds.), New waves in epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds S. (2002) Testimony, knowledge, and epistemic goals. Philosophical Studies 110: 139–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slote M. (1979) Assertion and belief. In: Dancy J. (Ed.), Papers on language and logic. Keele University Library, KeeleGoogle Scholar
  28. Sosa E. (1999) How to defeat opposition to Moore. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 141–153Google Scholar
  29. Sosa E. (2000) Skepticism and contextualism. Philosophical Issues 10: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanley J. (2005) Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Unger P. (1975) Ignorance: A case for scepticism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson T. (1996) Knowing and asserting. The Philosophical Review 105: 489–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Williamson T. (2009) Replies to critics. In: Greenough P., Pritchard D. (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Birkbeck College, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations