Philosophical Studies

, Volume 173, Issue 6, pp 1571–1590 | Cite as

Lewis on iterated knowledge

  • Bernhard Salow


The status of the knowledge iteration principles in the account provided by Lewis in “Elusive Knowledge” is disputed. By distinguishing carefully between what in the account describes the contribution of the attributor’s context and what describes the contribution of the subject’s situation, we can resolve this dispute in favour of Holliday’s (2015) claim that the iteration principles are rendered invalid. However, that is not the end of the story. For Lewis’s account still predicts that counterexamples to the negative iteration principle (\(\lnot Kp\rightarrow K\lnot Kp\)) come out as elusive: such counterexamples can occur only in possibilities which the attributors of knowledge are ignoring. This consequence is more defensible than it might look at first sight.


Epistemic logic Epistemic contextualism David Lewis 



I’m grateful to Kevin Dorst, Julien Dutant, Jeremy Goodman, Sophie Horowitz, Brendan de Kenessey, Justin Khoo, Harvey Lederman, Ginger Schultheis, Alex Silk, Declan Smithies, Jack Spencer, Jonathan Vogel, Roger White, Steve Yablo, and one anonymous referee for helpful comments and discussion. I’m especially grateful to Bob Stalnaker and a second anonymous referee, whose critical yet sympathetic comments have improved the following discussion immeasurably, with respect to both numerous specific details (too many to acknowledge individually) and overall structure.


  1. Blome-Tillman, M. (2009). Knowledge and presuppositions. Mind, 118, 241–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blome-Tillman, M. (2012). Contextualism and the problem of known presuppositions. In J. Brown & M. Gerken (Eds.), Knowledge ascriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blome-Tillman, M. (2014). Knowledge and presuppositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chrisman, M. (2007). From epistemic contextualism to epistemic expressivism. Philosophical Studies, 135, 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, D. (2010). Rational reflection. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. (1998). Contextualist solutions to epistemological problems: Scepticism, Gettier and the lottery. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeRose, K. (2004). Single scoreboard semantics. Philosophical Studies, 119, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douven, I. (2005). Lewis on fallible knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 573–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elga, A. (2013). The puzzle of the unmarked clock and the new rational reflection principle. Philosophical Studies, 164, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greco, D. (2014). A puzzle about epistemic akrasia. Philosophical Studies, 167, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Holliday, W. (2013). Response to Egré and Xu. In J. van Benthem & F. Liu (Eds.), Logic across the university: Foundations and applications. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Holliday, W. (2015). Epistemic closure and epistemic logic I: Relevant alternatives and subjunctivism. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44, 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holton, R. (2003). David Lewis’s philosophy of language. Mind and Language, 18, 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horowitz, S. (2014). Epistemic akrasia. Nous, 48, 718–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ichikawa, J. (2011a). Quantifiers and epistemic contextualism. Philosophical Studies, 155, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ichikawa, J. (2011b). Quantifiers, knowledge and counterfactuals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ichikawa, J. (2013). Basic knowledge and contextualist “E = K”. Thought, 2, 282–292.Google Scholar
  21. Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (2015). New rational reflection and internalism about rationality. In T. Szabo Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology (Vol. 5). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In T. Szabo Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schaffer, J. (2004). Scepticism, contextualism, and discrimination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69, 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smithies, D. (2014). The phenomenal basis of epistemic justification. In J. Kallestrup & M. Sprevak (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of mind. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Stalnaker, R. (1988). Belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm & D. Merill (Eds.), Contents of thought. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vogel, J. (1999). The new relevant alternatives theory. Nous, 33, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weatherson, B. (2008). Attitudes and relativism. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weisberg, J. (2007). Conditionalization, reflection, and self-knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 135, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, M. (2001). Contextualism, externalism, and epistemic standards. Philosophical Studies, 103, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Williamson, T. (2001). Comments on Michael Williams ‘scepticism, contextualism, and discrimination’. Philosophical Studies, 103, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williamson, T. (2009). Reply to Stephen Schiffer. In P. Greenough & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Williamson on knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Williamson, T. (2011). Improbable knowing. In T. Dougherty (Ed.), Evidentialism and its discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Trinity College CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations