Epistemic closure, assumptions and topics of inquiry

Synthese 191 (16):3977-4002 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the principle of epistemic closure, knowledge is closed under known implication. The principle is intuitive but it is problematic in some cases. Suppose you know you have hands and you know that ‘I have hands’ implies ‘I am not a brain-in-a-vat’. Does it follow that you know you are not a brain-in-a-vat? It seems not; it should not be so easy to refute skepticism. In this and similar cases, we are confronted with a puzzle: epistemic closure is an intuitive principle, but at times, it does not seem that we know by implication. In response to this puzzle, the literature has been mostly polarized between those who are willing to do away with epistemic closure and those who think we cannot live without it. But there is a third way. Here I formulate a restricted version of the principle of epistemic closure. In the standard version, the principle can range over any proposition; in the restricted version, it can only range over those propositions that are within the limits of a given epistemic inquiry and that do not constitute the underlying assumptions of the inquiry. If we adopt the restricted version, I argue, we can preserve the advantages associated with closure, while at the same time avoiding the puzzle I’ve described. My discussion also yields an insight into the nature of knowledge. I argue that knowledge is best understood as a topic-restricted notion, and that such a conception is a natural one given our limited cognitive resources

Similar books and articles

What We Can Learn from the Skeptical Puzzle.Tim Black - 2009 - Iris. European Journal of Philosophy and Public Debate 1 (2):439-447.
Living without closure.Krista Lawlor - 2005 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 69 (1):25-50.
When does epistemic closure fail?M. Yan - 2013 - Analysis 73 (2):260-264.
Problems for contrastive closure: resolved and regained.Michael Hughes - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):577-590.
Solving the problem of easy knowledge.Tim Black - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):597-617.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-07-23

Downloads
569 (#28,565)

6 months
96 (#37,124)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marcello Di Bello
Arizona State University

References found in this work

Knowledge and its limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Philosophical explanations.Robert Nozick - 1981 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Knowledge and lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2004 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Epistemic Luck.Duncan Pritchard - 2005 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.

View all 52 references / Add more references