Abstract
Ernest Sosa has argued that if someone knows that p, then his belief that p is “safe”. and Timothy Williamson has agreed. In this paper I argue that safety, as defined by Sosa, is not a necessary condition on knowledge – that we can have unsafe knowledge. I present Sosa’s definition of safety and a counterexample to it as a necessary condition on knowledge. I also argue that Sosa’s most recent refinements to the notion of safety don’t help him to avoid the counterexample. I consider three replies on behalf of the defender of safety, and find them all wanting. Finally, I offer a tentative diagnosis of my counterexample.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Juan Comesaña (2002) ArticleTitle“The Diagonal and the Demon” Philosophical Studies 110 249–266 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1020656411534
Robert Nozick (1981) Philosophical Explanations Oxford University Press Oxford
Christopher Peacocke (1999) Being Known Oxford University Press Oxford
Ernest Sosa (1996) ‘Postscript to “Proper Functionalism and Virtue Epistemology” ’ J.L. Kvanvig (Eds) Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology Rowman Littlefield
Ernest Sosa (1999) ArticleTitle‘How Must Knowledge Be Modally Related to What Is Known?’ Philosophical Topics 26 IssueID1/2 373–384
Sosa, Ernest: 2000 ‘Skepticism and Contextualism’, in J. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Issues, 10, 1–18.
Ernest Sosa (2002) ‘Tracking, Competence, and Knowledge’ P. Moser (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology Oxford University Press Oxford
Jonathan Vogel (1987) ‘Tracking, Closure, and Inductive Knowledge’ S. Luper-Foy (Eds) The Possibility of Knowledge Rowman Littlefield
Timothy Williamson (2000) Knowledge and its Limits Oxford University Press Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Comesaña, J. Unsafe Knowledge. Synthese 146, 395–404 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6213-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6213-7