pp 1–18 | Cite as

Perceptual Knowledge, Discrimination, and Closure

  • Santiago EcheverriEmail author
Original Research


Carter and Pritchard (Philos Stud 173(4):969–990, 2016) and Pritchard (Noûs 44(2):245–268, 2010, Epistemological disjunctivism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, Epistemic angst: radical scepticism and the groundlessness of our believing, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2016) have tried to reconcile the intuition that perceptual knowledge requires only limited discriminatory abilities with the closure principle. To this end, they have introduced two theoretical innovations: a contrast between two ways of introducing error-possibilities and a distinction between discriminating and favoring evidence. I argue that their solution faces the “sufficiency problem”: it is unclear whether the evidence that is normally available to adult humans is sufficient to retain knowledge of the entailing proposition and come to know the entailed proposition. I submit that, on either infallibilist or fallibilist views of evidence, Carter and Pritchard have set the bar for deductive knowledge too low. At the end, I offer an alternative solution. I suggest that the knowledge-retention condition of the closure principle is not satisfied in zebra-like scenarios.



I would like to thank Arturs Logins, Davide Fassio, and two anonymous referees for their detailed and challenging comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


Funding was provided by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Grant No. FNS P300P1_161061/1).


  1. Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 20, 148–187.Google Scholar
  2. Carter, A., & Pritchard, D. (2016). Perceptual knowledge and relevant alternatives. Philosophical Studies, 173(4), 969–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). How to be a fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 57–89.Google Scholar
  5. Conee, E. (2005). Contextualism contested. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 47–57). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. DeRose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. Philosophical Review, 104, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy 67, 1007–1023. Reprinted in his Perception, knowledge, and belief: Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 30–47).Google Scholar
  8. Dretske, F. (1971). Conclusive reasons. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49(1), 1–22. Reprinted in his Perception, knowledge, and belief: Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 3–29).Google Scholar
  9. Dretske, F. (1981). The pragmatic dimension of knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 40, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dretske, F. (2005). The case against closure. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 11–26). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, R. (1999). Contextualism and skepticism. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 91–114.Google Scholar
  12. Firth, R. (1978). Are epistemic concepts reducible to ethical concepts? In A. Goldman & J. Kim (Eds.), Values and morals (pp. 215–229). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 73(20), 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 549–567. Reprinted in his Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 (pp. 418–445).Google Scholar
  17. MacFarlane, J. (2000). What does it mean to say that logic is formal? Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Pritchard, D. (2010). Relevant alternatives, perceptual knowledge and discrimination. Noûs, 44(2), 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pritchard, D. (2012). Epistemological disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pritchard, D. (2016). Epistemic angst: Radical scepticism and the groundlessness of our believing. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radford, C. (1966). Knowledge—By examples. Analysis, 27, 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Schaffer, J. (2005). Contrastive knowledge. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 235–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schaffer, J. (2007). Closure, contrast, and answer. Philosophical Studies, 133, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stine, G. C. (1976). Skepticism, relevant alternatives, and deductive closure. Philosophical Studies, 29, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vogel, J. (1990). Are there counterexamples to the closure principle? In M. Roth & G. Ross (Eds.), Doubting: Contemporary perspectives on skepticism (pp. 13–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vogel, J. (1999). The new relevant alternatives theory. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 155–180.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural doubts: Epistemological realism and the basis of scepticism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wright, C. (2003). Some reflections on the acquisition of warrant by inference. In S. Nuccetelli (Ed.), New essays on semantic externalism and self-knowledge (pp. 57–77). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNew York University (NYU)New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations