, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 173–194 | Cite as

Warrant without truth?



This paper advances the debate over the question whether false beliefs may nevertheless have warrant, the property that yields knowledge when conjoined with true belief. The paper’s first main part—which spans Sections 2–4—assesses the best argument for Warrant Infallibilism, the view that only true beliefs can have warrant. I show that this argument’s key premise conflicts with an extremely plausible claim about warrant. Sections 5–6 constitute the paper’s second main part. Section 5 presents an overlooked puzzle about warrant, and uses that puzzle to generate a new argument for Warrant Fallibilism, the view that false beliefs can have warrant. Section 6 evaluates this pro-Fallibilism argument, finding ultimately that it defeats itself in a surprising way. I conclude that neither Infallibilism nor Fallibilism should now constrain theorizing about warrant.


Warrant Knowledge Infallibilism Fallibilism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong D. (1973). Belief, truth and knowledge. New York, Cambridge UPGoogle Scholar
  2. Audi R. (2003). Epistemology. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Audi R. (1993). The structure of justification. New York, Cambridge UPGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett J. (1974). Counterfactuals and possible worlds. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 4, 381–402Google Scholar
  5. Bennett J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigelow, J. No Possibility of Error ( David and Warfield: No update available.Google Scholar
  7. BonJour L. (1996). Plantinga on knowledge and proper function. In: Kvanvig J.(ed) Warrant in contemporary epistemology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 47–71Google Scholar
  8. Chisholm R. (1982). The foundations of knowing. Minneapolis, U of Minnesota PGoogle Scholar
  9. David M. (2001). Truth as the epistemic goal. In: Steup M.(ed) Knowledge, truth, and duty. New York, Oxford UP, pp. 151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David M., Warfield, T. (forthcoming). Knowledge closure and skepticism. In Q. Smith (Ed.), New essays in epistemology. New York: Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  11. Dretske F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine K. (1975). Critical notice: counterfactuals. By D. Lewis. Mind 84, 451–458Google Scholar
  14. Gettier E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge?. Analysis 23, 121–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldman A. (1967). A causal theory of knowing. The Journal of Philosophy 64, 355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldman A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UPGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene R., Balmert N.A. (1997). Two notions of warrant and Plantinga’s solution to the Gettier problem. Analysis 57, 132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawthorne J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  19. Hetherington S. (1996). Knowledge puzzles. Boulder, CO: WestviewGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilpinen R. (1988). Knowledge and conditionals. Philosophical Perspectives 2, 157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard-Snyder D., Howard-Snyder F., Feit N. (2003). Infallibilism and Gettier’s legacy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, 304–327Google Scholar
  22. Huemer M. (2005). Logical properties of warrant. Philosophical Studies 122, 171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein P. (1996). Warrant, proper function, reliabilism, and defeasibility. In: Kvanvig J.(ed) Warrant in contemporary epistemology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  24. Kvanvig J. (2004). Nozickian epistemology and the value of knowledge. Philosophical Issues 14, 201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehrer K. (1965). Knowledge, truth, and evidence. Analysis 25, 168–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loux M. (2006). Metaphysics. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. McGrew T., McGrew L. (1998). Internalism and the collapse of the Gettier problem. Journal of Philosophical Research 23, 239–256Google Scholar
  28. Merricks T. (1995). Warrant entails truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55, 841–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merricks T. (1997). More on warrant’s entailing truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57, 627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merricks T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelkin D. (2000). The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality. Philosophical Review 109, 373–409Google Scholar
  32. Nozick R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UPGoogle Scholar
  33. Penczek A. (1997). Counterfactuals with true components. Erkenntnis 46, 79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plantinga A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. New York, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  35. Plantinga A. (1996). Respondeo. In: Kvanvig J.(ed) Warrant in contemporary epistemology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  36. Plantinga A. (1997). Warrant and accidentally true belief. Analysis 57, 140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pojman L. (2001). What can we know?: An introduction to the theory of knowledge. Belmont, CA: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  38. Pritchard D. (2005). Epistemic luck. Oxford, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan S. (1996). Does warrant entail truth?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56, 183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sainsbury R.M. (1997). Easy possibilities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57, 907–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sosa E. (1999). How to defeat opposition to moore. Philosophical Perspectives 13, 141–153Google Scholar
  42. Sturgeon S. (1993). The Gettier problem. Analysis 53, 156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Unger P. (1968). An analysis of factual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 65, 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Inwagen P. (1997). Against middle knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 21, 225–236Google Scholar
  45. Warfield T. (2005). Knowledge from falsehood. Philosophical Perspectives 19, 405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weatherson B. (2003). What good are counterexamples?. Philosophical Studies 115, 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams M. (1978). Inference, justification and the analysis of knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 75, 249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williamson T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford, Oxford UPGoogle Scholar
  49. Zagzebski L. (1994). The inescapability of Gettier problems. Philosophical Quarterly 44, 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zagzebski L. (1996). Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of Knowledge. New York, Cambridge UPGoogle Scholar
  51. Zagzebski L. (1999). What is knowledge?. In: Greco J., Sosa E.(eds) The Blackwell guide to epistemology. Malden, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations