Philosophical Studies

, Volume 160, Issue 3, pp 391–405 | Cite as

Interpretation and knowledge maximization

Article

Abstract

Timothy Williamson has proposed that we should give a ‘knowledge first’ twist to David Lewis’s account of content, maintaining that for P to be the content of one’s belief is for P to be the content that would be attributed by an idealized interpreter working under certain constraints, and that the fundamental constraint on interpretation is a principle of knowledge maximization. According to this principle, an interpretation is correct to the extent that it maximizes the number of knowledgeable judgments the subject comes out as making. Here I will argue against knowledge maximization and two fallback positions suggested by Williamson’s discussion. Williamson intends the principle of knowledge maximization to form the basis of an argument against a certain sort of skepticism about judgment. In the final section I argue that the kind of general response to judgment skepticism envisaged by Williamson is neither desirable nor necessary.

Keywords

Interpretation Reference Content Knowledge Skepticism 

References

  1. Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson, D. (1983). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In D. Henrich (Ed.), Kant oder Hegel? (pp. 423–438). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  3. Grandy, R. (1973). Reference, meaning, and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Horgan, T. (1995). Transvaluationism: A Dionysian approach to vagueness. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33(supplement), 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D. (1974). Radical interpretation. Synthese, 23, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1975). Languages and language. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12, 3–35.Google Scholar
  9. Martin, M. G. F. (2009). Reupholstering a discipline: Comments on Williamson. Philosophical Studies, 145, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pritchard, D. (2009). Safety-based epistemology: Whither now? Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 33–45.Google Scholar
  11. Sainsbury, R. M. (1997). Easy possibilities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57, 907–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sainsbury, R. M. (2005). Reference without referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Weatherson, B. (2004). Luminous margins. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Williamson, T. (2004). Philosophical ‘Intuition’ and skepticism about judgment. Dialectica, 58, 109–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williamson, T. (2009a). Replies to critics. In P. Greenough & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge (pp. 282–384). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Williamson, T. (2009b). Replies to Ichikawa, Martin and Weinberg. Philosophical Studies, 145, 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations