Acta Analytica

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 83–115 | Cite as

Relevance and Non-Factive Knowledge Attributions

  • Filippo DomaneschiEmail author
  • Simona Di Paola


Over the last decades, the notion of knowledge has raised a complex debate in philosophy and cognitive science about the problem of determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge attribution. According to the traditional tripartite analysis, entertaining a justified true belief is both necessary and sufficient to have knowledge. 1 That is to say, a cognitive subject S knows a proposition p if and only if:
  1. (i)

    p is true

  2. (ii)

    S believes that p

  3. (iii)

    The belief entertained by S is justified


The third condition has been questioned for at least two reasons. First of all, epistemologists disagree on what counts as justification. On the one hand, internalists take justification to depend solely on the cognitive subject’s internal mental states. On the other hand, by focusing on beliefs produced by reliably cognitive processes, externalists take into account aspects somehow external to the mere analysis of one’s internal mental states. Moreover,...


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckwalter, W., Rose, D., & Turri, J. (2015). Belief through thick and thin. Think, 49(4), 748–775.Google Scholar
  4. Buckwalter, W. (2014). Factive verbs and protagonist projection. Episteme, 11, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carston, R. (1996). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 1–30.Google Scholar
  7. Chisholm, R. (1989). Theory of knowledge. 3rd ed. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1966). More about knowing and feeling sure. Analysis, 27, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, S. (1987). Knowledge, context, and social standards. Synthese, 73(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colonna Dahlman, R. (2016). Did people in the middle ages Know that the earth was flat? Acta Analytica, 31(2), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeRose, K. (2002). Assertion, knowledge, and context. Philosophical Review, 111(2), 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hazlett, A. (2010). The myth of Factive verbs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hazlett, A. (2012). Factive presupposition and the truth condition on knowledge. Acta Analytica. Online First:, 27, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holton, R. (1997). Some telling examples: A reply to Tsohatzidis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 624–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, O. R. (1971). Knowing and guessing: By examples. Analysis, 32, 19–23.Google Scholar
  17. Lehrer, K. (1974). Knowledge. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Myers-Schulz, B., & Schwitzgebel, E. (2013). Knowing that P without believing that P. Noûs, 47(2), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radford, C. (1966). Knowledge—By examples. Analysis, 27, 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Rose, D., & Schaffer, J. (2013). Knowledge entails dispositional belief. Philosophical Studies, 166, 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sackris, D., Beebe, J. (2014). Is justification necessary for knowledge?. In Beebe J. R. (ed.). Advances in experimental epistemology. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., & Blouw, P. (in press). Knowledge and luck. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Google Scholar
  25. Weinberg, J. M., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29, 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp. 230–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DISFOR—Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology Unit, Laboratory of Psychology of LanguageUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations