Defining Knowledge, Misc

This paper argues that the classical formulation of the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” rests on a false symmetry between “something” and “nothing.” In its standard metaphysical form, the question treats both terms as if they were equally available explanatory alternatives and then asks why one obtains rather than the other. Against this framing, I develop a reconstruction of the problem from within MARP (Metaphysics of the Absolute and Reference Points). On this view, judgment does not begin (...) from an absolute standpoint but from a point of reference: a structured condition under which differentiation, attribution, and intelligibility become possible. What appears as certainty, stability, or presence is therefore not evidence of an unconditioned absolute, but the effect of highly stabilized referential configurations. On this basis, unity is reinterpreted not as an ontological primitive but as an operational consequence of determination, while determination itself is understood not as an object before judgment but as the condition of possibility of judgment. The central claim is that “nothing” fails to qualify as a genuine explanatory alternative to “something,” because it lacks the conditions of determination, reference, and inferential support required for comparison. The question of existence must therefore be reformulated: not why being was selected over nothingness, but how determination becomes possible such that something can appear at all. (shrink)

This paper articulates the Law of Epistemic Warrant: a constitutive, agent-general procedural law governing how epistemic warrant can arise for any finite conscious agent. The law does not function as a theory within epistemology, nor as a deductive argument for knowledge. Instead, it describes the necessary structural conditions that must be jointly instantiated for warrant-seeking inquiry to succeed at all. These conditions are expressed by the PIE Sequence (mnemonic: Perception, Inquiry, Experimentation), which specifies how epistemic instability arises, how inquiry is (...) normatively directed, and how warrant is procedurally resolved across distinct domains. The law yields exactly two non-arbitrary forms of epistemic warrant—Justified coherent belief (JCB) for intrinsic claims and Justified Reliable Belief (JRB) for extrinsic claims. By relocating epistemic warrant from propositional justification to procedural resolution, the law dissolves Agrippa’s Trilemma, which applies only to belief-justification frameworks. The persistence of Gettier-style problems is likewise explained as a structural consequence of attempting to force propositional truth conditions onto a domain governed by procedural warrant. (shrink)

The Pyrrhonian Skeptic’s Agrippa Trilemma asserts that any knowledge claim is doomed to infinite regress, arbitrary dogmatism, or circular reasoning. This paper argues that the Trilemma is an axiomatic consequence of the historical reliance on the problematic Justified True Belief (JTB) definition and the failure to rigorously define the necessary structure of conscious inquiry. This paper introduces the Gageian Epistemic Model (GEM), a descriptive meta-epistemology that formalizes the mandatory procedure of conscious warrant into the PIE Syllogism (P1-P5). The GEM offers (...) a unique, structural response to the Trilemma: the infinite regress is terminated by the self-vindicating, structurally mandated axiom, P1: The Axiom of Subjective State (S). Arbitrariness is overcome by demonstrating the structural necessity of P3 (the Goal of resolution), and circularity is controlled by establishing two distinct, warranted standards for belief. The GEM formalizes all warranted belief across two categories: Intrinsic Knowledge as Justified Coherent Belief (JCB), warranted by internal coherence via P4, and Extrinsic Knowledge as Justified Reliable Belief (JRB), warranted by external predictive success via P5. This axiomatic procedure provides the foundational justification for the methodology of modern science and mathematics, proving it is the only structurally defensible path available to a conscious agent. (shrink)

Since Gettier’s 1963 paper, epistemology has pursued repairs to Justified True Belief through safety conditions, sensitivity conditions, no-false-lemmas clauses, and virtue-theoretic supplements. This paper argues that the entire repair project rests on a false assumption: that JTB is the right analysis of knowledge requiring only refinement. Instead, JTB is a structurally incoherent category. For finite agents, truth-as-correspondence cannot function as a warrant condition because such agents cannot verify correspondence without generating infinite regress, circularity, or arbitrary stipulation. Only two forms of (...) warrant are structurally available: coherence for intrinsic claims (Justified Coherent Belief) and reliability for extrinsic claims (Justified Reliable Belief). Gettier cases persist not because JTB needs supplementation but because the category itself demands what is impossible for finite agents. (shrink)

The Justified True Belief (JTB) standard, which has dominated Western epistemology, is structurally flawed because its demand for Absolute Truth is metaphysically impossible for any conscious agent to verify. This paper argues that JTB is not knowledge and introduces the Gageian Epistemic Model (GEM) as a replacement framework. The GEM is a descriptive meta-epistemology that resolves the Agrippa Trilemma by formalizing the necessary structural procedure of conscious awareness into the PIE Syllogism (P1-P5). This approach replaces JTB with two attainable, non-arbitrary (...) standards for warranted belief: Justified Coherent Belief (JCB) for intrinsic knowledge (necessary truths) and Justified Reliable Belief (JRB) for extrinsic knowledge (contingent empirical claims). The GEM thereby defines the only axiomatic path to warranted belief, aligning the definition of knowledge with the verifiable capabilities of human inquiry. (shrink)

Adrian Heathcote has proposed a truth-making account of knowledge that combines traditional conditions of justified true belief with the truth-making condition, which would jointly provide us with the sufficient condition of knowledge, and this truth-maker account of knowledge in turn explains why a gettiered justified true belief fails to be regarded as a genuine instance of knowledge. In this paper, by the comparison of two different casual models that are illustrated by the thermometer and the clock respectively, however, it will (...) be argued that Heathcote’s truth-making account of knowledge fails to cope with the Gettier case of the stopped clock and therefore is called for some further remedy. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Given the complexity of the Cosmos, and of the contingent observer, it is axiomatic that the obverse of the law of identity includes a complex reverse: a thing not only is only what it is, it also is not all those things which it is not. But, given the possible combinations of knowledge and ignorance regarding a given topic, any number of various conflations of the two sides of this axiom is possible regarding that topic. Further, given the extent (...) of ignorance possible regarding a topic, the extent of this conflation can be so deep that a person may have a virtually unlimited body of 'logic' upon which to seem to confirm the sense that a favored position is sound. Moreover, given the demands and rewards of the practical epistemological algorithms in which we continually are engaged, much of the a priori knowledge on which such algorithms are based is obscured. As one of the most a priori conceptions, omnipotence, divine or otherwise, is especially opaque. Abraham Lincoln said if you want to test a person’s character, you can’t do so simply by making him suffer, but by giving him power. Logic is a power to know or prove things; but, what a person is in the habit of most valuing informs all his logic. Divine omnipotence is defined as essentially primary, creative, and immediately coherent. But, a more-or-less pressing concern for cognitive efficiency, combined with a psychologically adversarial response to a world of disharmony and progressive entropy, impels us to re-conceptualize omnipotence in terms of a notion which, by being logically indifferent to the relations of effects to their causes, is 'epistemologically adverse' to any positive concept of power. (shrink)

This paper presents a speculative yet theoretically grounded hypothesis: that the brain may sustain a non-local quantum field—generated by the continuous emission of entangled biphotons in myelinated axons—which serves not as a computational process, but as the structural condition for metacognitive awareness. Drawing from a metaphysical hierarchy of the psyche, Husserlian phenomenology, and Neoplatonic ontology, we argue that consciousness requires not only cognitive functions but also an invariant observational frame—a silent structure from which thought becomes observable. We propose that this (...) frame, called the aiontangle, is a continuously regenerated lattice of non-local coherence that simulates temporal permanence without transmitting information or collapsing quantum states. This structure is not the generative source of consciousness, but its structural host: a quantum correlate of the transcendental ego, enabling conscious experience to arise without itself producing it. Our model contrasts with Orch-OR and Many-Worlds interpretations by emphasizing the need for a non-branching, non-collapsing frame that enables experience to appear. Microtubules may act as biological interfaces coupling neural processes to this structural field, without constituting the source of conscious experience themselves. We also explore how contemplative states may disclose this invariant structure experientially, and propose an epistemology of receptivity grounded in ontological presence. While current technology limits direct testing, we outline two empirical paths: one comparing structural coherence across species, and another examining the microtubular coupling mechanism. By reframing consciousness as a layered phenomenon grounded in structural invariance, this paper invites a broader dialogue between physics, phenomenology, contemplative science, and metaphysics. (shrink)

Most traditional tests of knowledge, such as justified true belief, include an element of belief. The need for this element has never been formally justified. Moreover, including belief produces incorrect results and adds nothing to determination of knowledge. A proper test of knowledge, I argue, excludes belief entirely and assesses knowledge instead solely through logical tools that offer the most reliable evaluation of a proposition's correspondence with truth as best we can understand it. My approach avoids errors inherent in the (...) belief-based tests and clarifies our understanding of knowledge. (shrink)

This paper proposes that the act of distinction constitutes the most fundamental operation in epistemology, logic, and ontology. Rather than assuming pre-existing entities, categories, or identities, we begin with the minimal cognitive gesture: to distinguish. From this act—denoted ∆—we reconstruct a unified structural architecture of cognition. Drawing on category theory, type theory, topos theory, and homotopy type theory, we show how frames, coherence, recursive inference, and even consciousness can emerge from composable structures of difference. -/- Distinction is treated not as (...) a relation between things, but as the generative morphism from which things become intelligible. We develop a foundational category, Dist, where morphisms are distinctions and objects are epistemic anchors defined by their differential participation. Typing is reframed as stabilized distinction, lambda calculus as suspended application of difference, and topoi as epistemic manifolds encoding local logic. Homotopy-theoretic identity becomes epistemic drift: a history-preserving path through cognitive transformation. -/- This approach yields a structural ontology in which cognition is not the processing of content, but the recursive choreography of distinctions. We argue that all epistemic phenomena—logic, perception, inference, and even ethics—can be grounded in this architecture. The result is not merely a model of thought, but a generative framework for the emergence of intelligibility itself. (shrink)

It is widely accepted that knowledge is factive. This claim is typically justified linguistically: ascribing knowledge of a falsehood sounds contradictory. But linguistic arguments can be problematic. In a recent article, Brent G. Kyle argues that the factivity of knowledge can be proved deductively, without appeal to ordinary language. I argue, however, that his proof relies on a premise that can only be justified linguistically.

Nozick has an account of inferential knowledge which has rarely been discussed. According to this account, in order to know q via competent inference from p, S’s belief in q should track the truth of p in the right way. In detail, S knows via competent inference from p that q iff 1*. S knows that p. 2*. q is true, and S infers q from p. 3*. If q were false, S wouldn’t believe that p. 4*. If q were (...) true, S would believe that p. In this paper, it is argued that the account is problematic. It is both too restrictive and too inclusive. It is too restrictive because condition 4* is not satisfied in some cases of inferential knowledge. It is too inclusive because condition 3*, together with other conditions, could be easily satisfied in some cases where inferential knowledge does not exist. (shrink)

Ichikawa (2011) proposes a sensitivity account of knowledge adapted in a contextualist framework. On the one hand, this seems to be an attractive response to skepticism as it gives skeptics their due while preserving ordinary knowledge (at least in some contexts). On the other hand, it does not imply closure failure for knowledge. In this paper, it is argued that the account could not respond to skepticism successfully while retaining epistemic closure. If the possible worlds that should be considered in (...) a non-skeptical context always include the closest possible world where the target proposition is false, then the account implies epistemic closure; if not, then the account makes it too easy to know the negation of a skeptical hypothesis. (shrink)

In the recent literature on the nature of knowledge, a rivalry has emerged between modalism and explanationism. According to modalism, knowledge requires that our beliefs track the truth across some appropriate set of possible worlds. Modalists tend to focus on two modal conditions: sensitivity and safety. According to explanationism, knowledge requires only that beliefs bear the right sort of explanatory relation to the truth. In slogan form: knowledge is believing something because it's true. In this paper, we aim to vindicate (...) explanationism from some recent objections offered by Gualtiero Piccinini, Dario Mortini, and Kenneth Boyce and Andrew Moon. Together, these authors present five purported counterexamples to the sufficiency of the explanationist analysis for knowledge. In addition, Mortini devises a clever argument that explanationism entails the violation of a plausible closure principle on knowledge. We will argue that explanationism is innocent of all these charges against it, and we hope that the strength of the defense we offer of explanationism is evidence in its favor, and a reason to investigate explanationism further as the long-elusive truth about the nature of knowledge. (shrink)

The thesis that knowledge is a factive mental state plays a central role in knowledge-first epistemology, but accepting this thesis requires also accepting an unusually severe version of externalism about the mind. On this strong attitude externalism, whether S is in the mental state of knowledge can and often will rapidly change in virtue of changes in external states of reality with which S has no causal contact. It is commonly thought that this externalism requirement originates in the factivity of (...) knowledge. However, despite a number of recent defenses of non-factive accounts of knowledge, epistemology has yet to consider whether a non-factive approach might produce a version of the mental state thesis that can avoid strong externalism. Here I do just that, exploring how three different proposals for weakening factivity might be adapted to theories of knowledge as a non-factive mental state. Contrary to what we might expect, however, none of these proposals are compatible with anything close to attitude internalism about knowledge—or even a substantially weaker externalism. All told, the widespread view that wraps up the severe externalism required for knowledge to be a mental state in factivity is mistaken. Knowledge’s external-world connection runs far deeper than the factivity constraint. (shrink)

We report three studies on knowledge attributions in Gettier cases and their closely matched control cases (CMCs), i.e., scenarios similar in wording but lacking Gettierization. Although there is rich empirical literature on Gettier cases, CMCs are rarely used. Study 1 tested two scenarios that played an important role in the literature and found that most participants deny knowledge in both Gettierized and CMC variants of these scenarios. We hypothesized that these Gettier cases, besides Gettierization, possess another feature that affects knowledge (...) attributions: skeptical pressure. Study 2 tested this hypothesis by employing ‘depressurized’ versions of Gettier cases (scenarios devoid of elements exerting skeptical pressure) and found that depressurization significantly increases knowledge attributions in CMCs. Study 3 is a pre-registered replication of the main findings. We suggest that some previous studies on Gettier cases confounded two factors, Gettierization and skeptical pressure, and that the impact of these factors on knowledge attributions can be separated by the proper design of study materials. (shrink)

I defend a diachronic constraint on justification as a necessary condition for knowledge. In my view (JTB + D), a belief is knowledge-apt only if its justification is maintainable over a context-sensitive interval Δ under ordinary avenues of evidence-accrual, including reliable memory, testimony, and communal inquiry, with no accessible undefeated defeaters arising within that interval. This temporal, process-sensitive requirement mitigates Gettier-style luck by targeting “snapshot” justification that would easily collapse under minimal further scrutiny (as in Fake Barn County), while avoiding (...) infallibilism and over-intellectualism. I calibrate Δ by stakes and domain volatility to avoid vagueness and moving goalposts, distinguish responsive stability from mere habituation, and show how the account handles no-new-evidence scenarios without undermining ordinary memorial and testimonial knowledge. Conceptually, the proposal integrates internalist and externalist insights as it preserves reason-responsiveness over time and serves as an actual-world temporal analogue of safety, not a standalone fourth ‘dimension’. I engage canonical cases and acknowledge Zagzebski’s challenge: the view does not promise full Gettier immunity, but it raises the bar for counterexamples in ordinary environments. The result is a principled, parameterised refinement of the justification condition that better captures knowledge as an enduring, responsibly supported true belief. (shrink)

Recent epistemological literature features compelling and novel arguments for thinking that an agent can rationally believe each member of a set of propositions while knowing that one of the members is false. Perhaps more provocatively, these proponents of "Rational Inconsistency," as it were, claim that it’s also possible to know each true member of the set while knowing that one of the members is false. Call this "Knowledgeable Inconsistency." In this article, I explain why, if Knowledgeable Inconsistency is true, then, (...) on pain of an absurd implication about how confirmation works, we should reject non-skeptical Infallibilism about knowledge. For that same reason, the recent proponents of Rational Inconsistency should also reject non-skeptical Infallibilism. (shrink)

This paper identified reductionism, hasty conceptual generalization, Eurocentrism, and epistemological bias as forms of the fragmentation of knowledge. The fragmentation of knowledge goes against the philosophically Greek-based Western pattern of knowledge which was mainly in the hands of polymaths. The polymathic spirit remained until the emergence of Modernity. The emergent fragmentation of knowledge received criticism from thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Ivan Illich, Howard Gardner, Jürgen Wolfgang Habermas, and Chris B. Heilig. The division of knowledge into specializations has (...) two-fold effects: positive such as deep specialization and negative as the loss of holistic understanding and fragmentation. There are four forms of fragmentation: (1) reductionism, (2) hasty conceptual generalization, (3) Eurocentrism, and (4) epistemological bias. Reductionism is epistemological and theoretical. Epistemological reductionism suggests that all knowledge can be reduced to a single form of explanation, whereas theoretical reductionism suggests that one theory can be reduced to or explained by another, more fundamental theory. Hasty conceptual generalization happens when a concept is extended beyond its appropriate scope, leading to the loss of the essence of the phenomenon to which the concept is applied. Eurocentrism is mainly to understand and interpret the world from a European perspective. Epistemological bias is the criticism of many epistemological errors that can be corrected by adopting mixed methods, proper hermeneutics, reflexivity, observer participation, and erosion of gender bias. (shrink)

This entry summarizes arguments for and against the thesis that knowledge entails belief.

If there is any consensus about knowledge in contemporary epistemology it is that there is one primary kind: knowledge-that. I put forth a view, one I find in the works of Aristotle, on which instead knowledge-of - construed in a fairly demanding sense as being well-acquainted with things - is the primary kind. As to knowledge-that, it is not something distinct from knowledge-of, let alone more fundamental, but instead a species. To know that such-and-such, just like to know a person (...) or place, is to be well-acquainted with a portion of reality - in this case a fact. In part by comparing classic Gettier cases to cases in which one has true impressions of but fails to know a person, I argue that this account not only respects our intuitions about knowledge-that - in particular that it is or entails non-accidentally true justified belief - but also explains them, providing a compelling analysis. (shrink)

This paper argues that the historical conception of knowing as a presentational factive mental state (‘presentationalism’) is not best understood as an alternative to belief-based and knowledge-first epistemology, but rather as an account of epistemic architecture that is compatible with these paradigms. To defend this claim, the paper focuses on a challenge to presentationalism raised by inferential knowledge and argues that the problem can be solved only if presentationalism is understood as I suggest. The paper is structured as follows. §1 (...) explains presentationalism and its recent revival. §2 considers a flat-footed argument that presentationalism cannot get any cases of inferential knowledge right. §3 suggests that this problem can and should be solved by drawing a distinction between two kinds of epistemic priority, and by holding that inferential knowledge can be immediate in an epistemologically significant sense. But §4 argues that this only goes so far, since not all inferential knowledge is alike. This further problem can also be solved, but only if presentationalism is reframed as a proposal about epistemic architecture that does not compete with belief-based and knowledge-first accounts, §5 concludes. (shrink)

Ernest Sosa (1940-) is a central figure in contemporary epistemology. He is best known for pioneering the subfield of virtue epistemology, as well as developing across four decades his own distinctive framework in this tradition. Besides providing an overview of this work, this article offers a guide to Sosa’s other contributions to epistemology, stretching back to his first publication in 1964. The organization is as follows. §1 reviews Sosa’s distinctive brand of virtue epistemology and its development since 1980. §2 provides (...) a fuller synopsis of Sosa’s contributions to epistemology in five parts, covering his work on (i) the structure of justification and knowledge, (ii) the dawning of knowledge and understanding, (iii) skepticism and the possibility of empirical knowledge, (iv) methodology and the possibility of philosophy, and (v) the relationship between mind and world. Our aim is to encourage renewed appreciation of the full scope and depth of Sosa’s epistemology. We hope the reader will benefit from (re)exploring Sosa’s work guided by the map detailed below. (shrink)

According to the safety account of knowledge, one knows that p only if one’s belief in p could not easily have been false. In the literature, most objections to the safety account rely on intuition of knowledge that could be easily denied by the safety theorists. In this paper, an objection to the safety account which does not make use of such intuition is raised. It is argued that either there are instances of unsafe knowledge or the safety account has (...) an implausible implication that one’s epistemic status might depend on what happens in the future. (shrink)

These thirteen paragraphs portray epistemology as the study, not directly of knowing as a human action (which could be considered the object also of anthropology) but as the study of the mode of being of the object in the subject and, in this sense, of intentional being. Moreover, intentional being is not understood as the being of the cognitional species or representation, which is real and subjective, but as the being of the known, as the presence of the known to (...) the knower (obviously, through the species but a being not reduced to the subjective being of the species): this kind of being is the proper object of epistemology. Other considerations regarding the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology take place as well. As regards the method, this essay attempts to apply Aquinas’ four steps of scientific reasoning to epistemology, in the following fashion and order: 1- Solution of the problem of the universals by recourse to the theory of the agent intellect (resolutio secundum rem); 2- Definition of knowledge as intentional possession of being (res. sec. rationem); 3- Judgment of value regarding the different instances of human knowledge or critique of knowledge (compositio secundum rem) and 4- Reinterpretation (in the light of the previous path) of common notions of epistemology, such as truth, certainty, evidence, and error (comp. sec. rationem). (shrink)

Thought experiments figure prominently in contemporary epistemology. Beyond that humdrum observation, controversy abounds. The aim of this paper is to make progress on two fronts. On the descriptive front, the aim is to illuminate what the practice of using thought experiments involves. On the normative front, the aim is to illuminate what the practice of using thought experiments should involve. Thought experiments result in judgments that are passed on to further philosophical reasoning. What are these judgments? What is the point (...) of making them? What basis do we have for making them? A conception of thought experiments includes answers to these three questions. My thesis is that epistemologists should use thought experiments in accordance with a conception of them organized around the idea of explanation. My case for endorsing the thesis rests on the fruitfulness of the interventions in current debates about the content, point, and basis of thought experiment judgments that it suggests. (shrink)

Despite recent controversies surrounding the principle that knowledge entails truth (KT), this paper aims to prove that the principle is true. It offers a proof of (KT) in the following sense. It advances a deductively valid argument for (KT), whose premises are, by most lights, obviously true. Moreover, each premise is buttressed by at least two supporting arguments. And finally, all premises and supporting arguments can be rationally accepted by people who don’t already accept (KT).

Recent epistemology has witnessed a substantial opposition between two competing approaches to capturing the notion of non-accidentality in the analysis of knowledge: the explanationist and the modalist. According to the latest advocates of the former (e.g., Bogardus and Perrin 2020), S knows that p if and only if S believes that p because p is true. According to champions of the latter (e.g., safety and sensitivity theorists), S knows that p if and only if S's belief that p is true (...) in a relevant set of possible worlds. Because Bogardus and Perrin's explanationism promises to deliver a plausible analysis of knowledge without any need for modal notions, it is an elegant proposal with prima facie appeal. However, such version of explanationism ultimately does not live up to its promises: in this paper, I raise some objections to their explanationist analysis of knowledge while showing that modalism is in much better shape than they think. In particular, I argue that their explanationist condition generates the wrong results in Gettier cases and fake-barn cases. I also offer and defend a novel version of modalism: I introduce a refined safety condition which is shown to successfully handle the same Gettier cases that beset Bogardus and Perrin's version of explanationism. The paper concludes with a reassessment of the explanationist's initial ambition to provide an analysis of knowledge without modal notions. The upshot will be that even if the prospects for such analysis remain dim, our money should be on the modalist, not the explanationist. (shrink)

This paper shows that Hume was ultimately forced to conclude in The Treatise that all demonstrative and intuited claims can in fact, be imagined as otherwise. As a result, he was forced to conclude that all knowledge claims must, ultimately, reduce to probable claims, or in Hume’s own, and indisputably clear words: “all knowledge degenerates into probability." As a further result, it is suggested (briefly) that this anticipates Quine’s well-known attack on the analytic / synthetic distinction (Quine 1953).

Maria Rosa Antognazza's work has issued a historical challenge to the thesis that the analysis of knowledge (as justified true belief) attacked by epistemologists from Gettier onwards was indeed the standard view traditionally upheld from Plato onwards. This challenge led to an ongoing reappraisal of the historical significance of intuitive knowledge, in which the knower is intimately connected to what is known. Such traditional accounts of intuition, and their accompanying claims to epistemological primacy, constituted the precise target of Moritz Schlick's (...) critique. Schlick engages with this topic throughout his oeuvre, from some of his early epistemological writings, to his anti-metaphysical stance as a leading Logical Empiricist. Schlick crucially distinguishes knowledge from mere acquaintance, denying that the latter has epistemic status. He therefore argues that the very notion of ‘intuitive knowledge’ is a contradictio in adjecto. (shrink)

According to the sensitivity account of knowledge, S knows that p only if S's belief in p is sensitive in the sense that S would not believe that p if p were false. It is widely accepted that the sensitivity condition should be relativized to belief-formation methods to avoid putative counterexamples. A remaining issue for the account is how belief-formation methods should be individuated. In this paper, I argue that while a coarse-grained individuation is still susceptible to counterexamples, a fine-grained (...) individuation makes the target belief trivially insensitive. Therefore, there is no principled way of individuating belief-formation methods that helps the sensitivity account to accommodate different cases. (shrink)

One interesting and potentially attractive feature of the sensitivity account of knowledge is that it not only preserves knowledge of ordinary propositions, but also concedes the skeptic's intuition that we do not know skeptical hypotheses do not obtain. This paper challenges the sensitivity‐based reply to the skeptic, advocated by Robert Nozick, among others. Sensitivity generates an implausibly bizarre result that although we do not know we are not brains in vats (because a belief to this effect is insensitive), a real (...) BIV who is in a much worse epistemic situation can sensitively believe that it is not in the good case. This result reveals a fundamental problem with the sensitivity conditional: its antecedent is not suitable for picking out possibilities that are relevant for our epistemic evaluation. I then offer a systematic explanation of why it is the safety account—the main competitor of sensitivity—that picks out a more suitable set of possibilities. A consequence of this comparison is that the safety account delivers an overall more satisfying reply to the skeptic than sensitivity does. (shrink)

I advance a novel argument for an infallibilist theory of knowledge, according to which we know all and only those propositions that are certain for us. I argue that this theory lets us reconcile major extant theories of knowledge, in the following sense: for any of these theories, if we require that its central condition (evidential support, reliability, safety, etc.) obtains to a maximal degree, we get a theory of knowledge extensionally equivalent to infallibilism. As such, the infallibilist can affirm (...) that, when their conditions are suitably interpreted, most post-Gettier theories of knowledge offer necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. The infallibilist can thus reconcile major theories of knowledge, and is in a better position to explain the intuitive appeal of these theories than the fallibilist who only accepts one of them, and rejects the rest. (shrink)

In this essay, we explore how digital publishing can intervene in these processes and serve as a form of feminist activism. We take as our focus the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (JITP), founded in 2011 to expand the perspectives and standpoints that count as scholarly knowledge production and provide graduate students with editorial experience. As three long-standing members of the journal’s editorial collective, we have firsthand knowledge of how JITP’s publishing methods were developed through debate, struggle, and dialogue, (...) including many missteps and failures along the way. We argue that JITP's collaborative knowledge practices of inclusive editorial governance, open access, and open peer review are fundamentally feminist, as they diversify scholarly voices and increase access to the material channels in and through which knowledge circulates. At stake in our reflective analysis is a broader claim that extends beyond the parameters of our work with one particular journal: that feminist digital publishing methods can expand what counts as knowledge production. (shrink)

This article examines Christoph Kelp's project of epistemology, which combines the approaches of Timothy Williamson's knowledge-first approach and Ernest Sosa's virtue reliabilism. Arguments are given in favour of the position that Kelp's theory of competence is a quite productive and substantially self-contained epistemological concept. It allows to construct special epistemologies and to analyse the competence of non-human actors.

In this paper, I develop and motivate a novel formulation of the safety condition in terms of etiological proper function. After testing this condition against the most pressing objections to safety-theoretic accounts of knowledge in the literature, my conclusion will be the following: once safety is suitably understood in terms of etiological proper function, it stands a better chance as the right anti-Gettier condition on knowledge.

A significant discrepancy in Wittgenstein's studies is whether Philosophical Investigations contains any trace of positive philosophy, notwithstanding the author's apparent anti-theoretic position. This study argues that the so-called ‘Chapter on philosophy’ in the Investigations §§89–133 contains negative and positive vocabulary and the use of various voices through which Wittgenstein employs his primary method of language-games, thus providing a surveyable understanding of several philosophical concepts, such as knowledge and time. His positive philosophy aims to reorient our attention from understanding the theories (...) on these concepts to understanding the concepts themselves, regardless of any theorisation. (shrink)

Depending on whether we are somewhat tolerant of nearby error-possibilities or not, the safety condition on knowledge is open to a strong reading and a weak reading. In this paper, it is argued that induction and conjunction introduction constitute two horns of a dilemma for the safety account of knowledge. If we opt for the strong reading, then the safety account fails to account for inductive knowledge. In contrast, if we opt for the weak reading, then the safety account fails (...) to accommodate knowledge obtained via the method of conjunction introduction. (shrink)

Both sensitivity and safety theorists concur that their accounts should be relativized to the same method that one employs in the actual world. However, properly individuating methods has proven to be a tricky matter. In this regard, Nozick (Philosophical Explanations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1981) proposes a Same-Experience-Same-Method Principle: if the experiences associated with two method tokens are the same, they are of the same type of method. This principle, however, has been widely rejected by recent safety and sensitivity theorists. (...) In this paper, I raise an argument in favor of Nozick: not endorsing the principle leads to some rather implausible consequences when certain skeptical scenarios are considered—i.e., scenarios in which skeptical possibilities are ‘close’. Additionally, this argument reveals some important lessons about skepticism in general and the place of modal accounts of knowledge in the internalism/externalism debate. (shrink)

Modalists think that knowledge requires forming your belief in a “modally stable” way: using a method that wouldn't easily go wrong, or using a method that wouldn't have given you this belief had it been false. Recent Modalist projects from Justin Clarke-Doane and Dan Baras defend a principle they call “Modal Security,” roughly: if evidence undermines your belief, then it must give you a reason to doubt the safety or sensitivity of your belief. Another recent Modalist project from Carlotta Pavese (...) and Bob Beddor defends “Modal Virtue Epistemology”: knowledge is a belief that is maximally modally robust across “normal” worlds. We'll offer new objections to these recent Modalist projects. We will then argue for a rival view, Explanationism: knowing something is believing it because it's true. We will show how Explanationism offers a better account of undermining defeaters than Modalism, and a better account of knowledge. (shrink)

Post-Gettier epistemology is increasingly modalized epistemology – proposing and debating modally explicable conditionals with suitably epistemic content (an approach initially inspired by Robert Nozick's 1981 account of knowledge), as needing to be added to 'true belief' in order to define or understand knowing's nature. This Element asks whether such modalized attempts – construed as responding to what the author calls Knowing's Further Features question (bequeathed to us by the Meno and the Theaetetus) – can succeed. The answer is that they (...) cannot. Plato's and Aristotle's views on definition reinforce that result. Still, in appreciating this, we might gain insight into knowing's essence. We might find that knowledge is, essentially, nothing more than true belief. (shrink)

This book attempts to revolutionise epistemology. A traditional goal of epistemology is to provide an analysis of knowledge in terms of more basic things. But the post-Gettier literature has made some philosophers like Timothy Williamson suspect that knowledge cannot be analysed. Kelp claims that both the traditional project and Williamson's knowledge-first project are misguided. He provides an alternative: Knowledge is an item in an inquiry-related network and can thereby be analysed in terms of its relations to other items in the (...) network, rather than of things that are more basic than knowledge.Kelp begins his book by distinguishing two types of inquiry: inquiry into specific questions (such as whether Plato's Republic advocates totalitarianism and when World War I took place) and inquiry into general phenomena (such as the rise of the Roman Empire and the origins of species). Chapter 1 argues that the goal of inquiry into specific questions—Kelp's discussion focuses on whether questions—is knowledge. This is because even if the inquirer into whether p acquires a Gettierised justified true belief that p, she has not achieved the goal of inquiry, for the question of whether p has not been properly closed for her: she can be sensibly asked to do more research. (shrink)

Despite the substantial appeal of the safety condition, Kelp (J Philos Res 34:21–31, 2009; Am Philos Q 53:27–37; Good Thinking. A Knowledge First Virtue Epistemology, Routledge, London, 2018) has raised a difficult challenge for safety-theoretic accounts of knowledge. By combining Gettier-style fake barn cases with epistemic Frankfurt cases, he concludes that no formulation of safety can be strong enough to predict ignorance in the former and weak enough to accommodate knowledge in the latter. In this note, my contribution is two-fold. (...) Firstly, I take up Kelp’s challenge and I show that, once properly understood, safety successfully rises to it. Secondly, I draw a more general lesson on the safety condition: a satisfactory solution to Kelp’s challenge calls for a revision of the standard formulation of safety, which must be indexed to both methods and environments. My conclusion will be that an environment-relative version of safety not only meets Kelp’s challenge, but it also advances our understanding of the safety condition on knowledge. (shrink)

A standard view in philosophy is that knowledge entails justification. Yet recent research suggests otherwise. We argue that this admirable and striking research suffers from an important limitation: participants were asked about knowledge but not justification. Thus it is possible that people attributed knowledge partly because they thought the belief was justified. Perhaps though, if given the opportunity, people would deny justification while still attributing knowledge. It is also possible that earlier findings were due to perspective taking. This paper reports (...) further research that directly addresses these questions. Our findings support the hypothesis that knowledge entails justification on the ordinary view. (shrink)

Whether some condition is equivalent to a conjunction of some conditions has been a major issue in analytic philosophy. Examples include: knowledge, acting freely, causation, and justice. Philosophers have striven to offer analyses of these, and other concepts, by showing them equivalent to such a conjunction. Timothy Williamson offers a number of arguments for the idea that knowledge is ‘prime’, hence not equivalent to or composed by some such conjunction. I focus on one of his arguments: the requirement that such (...) conjuncts must be freely recombinable. Although there has been a great deal of discussion of Williamson's arguments, the flaw I describe has gone unnoticed. Williamson's argument is expressed in terms of conditions, and cases of the condition. Does the condition include specific information, or is the specific information only part of the case? His argument equivocates between more and less general specifications of the conditions. Once this distinction is clarified, his argument can be seen to be vitiated by this conflation. Neither option yields a sound argument for Williamson's desired conclusion. (shrink)

This essay explores a problem for Nyāya epistemologists. It concerns the notion of pramā. Roughly speaking, a pramā is a conscious mental event of knowledge-acquisition, i.e., a conscious experience or thought in undergoing which an agent learns or comes to know something. Call any event of this sort a knowledge-event. The problem is this. On the one hand, many Naiyāyikas accept what I will call the Nyāya Definition of Knowledge, the view that a conscious experience or thought is a knowledge-event (...) just in case it is true and non-recollective. On the other hand, they are also committed to what I shall call Nyāya Infallibilism, the thesis that every knowledge-event is produced by causes that couldn’t have given rise to an error. These two commitments seem to conflict with each other in cases of epistemic luck, i.e., cases where an agent arrives a true judgement accidentally or as a matter of luck. While the Nyāya Definition of Knowledge seems to predict that these judgements are knowledge-events, Nyāya Infallibilism seems to entail that they aren’t. In this essay, I show that Gaṅgeśa Upādhyāya, the 14th century Naiyāyika, solves this problem by adopting what I call epistemic localism, the view that upstream causal factors play no epistemically significant role in the production of knowledge. (shrink)

This paper models knowledge in cases where an agent has multiple experiences over time. Using this model, we introduce a series of observations that undermine the pretheoretic idea that the evidential significance of experience depends on the extent to which that experience matches the world. On the basis of these observations, we model knowledge in terms of what is likely given the agent’s experience. An agent knows p when p is implied by her epistemic possibilities. A world is epistemically possible (...) when its probability given the agent’s experiences is not significantly lower than the probability of the actual world given that experience. (shrink)

We propose that, for the purpose of studying theoretical properties of the knowledge of an agent with Artificial General Intelligence (that is, the knowledge of an AGI), a pragmatic way to define such an agent’s knowledge (restricted to the language of Epistemic Arithmetic, or EA) is as follows. We declare an AGI to know an EA-statement φ if and only if that AGI would include φ in the resulting enumeration if that AGI were commanded: “Enumerate all the EA-sentences which you (...) know.” This definition is non-circular because an AGI, being capable of practical English communication, is capable of understanding the everyday English word “know” independently of how any philosopher formally defines knowledge; we elaborate further on the non-circularity of this circular-looking definition. This elegantly solves the problem that different AGIs may have different internal knowledge definitions and yet we want to study knowledge of AGIs in general, without having to study different AGIs separately just because they have separate internal knowledge definitions. Finally, we suggest how this definition of AGI knowledge can be used as a bridge which could allow the AGI research community to import certain abstract results about mechanical knowing agents from mathematical logic. (shrink)

Classical philosophical analyses seek to explain knowledge as deriving from more basic notions. The influential “knowledge first” program in epistemology reverses this tradition, taking knowledge as its starting point. From the perspective of epistemic logic, however, this is not so much a reversal as it is the default—the field arguably begins with the specialization of “necessity” to “epistemic necessity”—that is, it begins with knowledge. In this context, putting knowledge second would be the reversal. This article motivates, develops, and explores such (...) a “knowledge second” approach in epistemic logic, founded on distinguishing what a body of evidence actually entails from what it is (merely) believed to entail. We import a logical framework that captures exactly this distinction, use it to define formal notions of (internal and external) justification and knowledge, and investigate applications to the KK principle, the “strong belief” postulate, and the regress problem. (shrink)