Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (3):505–536 (2006)
|Abstract||Empirical knowledge exists in the form of antiskeptical conditionals, which are propositions like [if I am not undetectably deceived, then I am holding a pen]. Such conditionals, despite their trivial appearance, have the same essential content as the categorical propositions that we usually discuss, and can serve the same functions in science and practical reasoning. This paper sketches out two versions of a general response to skepticism that employs these conditionals. The first says that our ordinary knowledge attributions can safely be replaced by statements using antiskeptical conditionals, which provides a way around the standard sort of skeptical argument while accepting its soundness with respect to the usual targets. The second analyzes the objects of our ordinary knowledge attributions as antiskeptical conditionals, which allows us to refute, not just evade, the skeptic's argument. Both versions compare favorably to the best-knowncurrent approaches to skepticism, including semantic contextualism|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Smith (2007). Ceteris Paribus Conditionals and Comparative Normalcy. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):97 - 121.
Barry Loewer (1981). Descartes' Skeptical and Antiskeptical Arguments. Philosophical Studies 39 (2):163 - 182.
Daniel Rothschild (2013). Do Indicative Conditionals Express Propositions? Noûs 47 (1):49-68.
Eric Swanson (2013). Subjunctive Biscuit and Stand-Off Conditionals. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):637-648.
Jochen Briesen (2008). Skepticism, Externalism, and Inference to the Best Explanation. Abstracta 4 (1):5-26.
Frank Jackson (ed.) (1991). Conditionals. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #27,874 of 549,041 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,041 )
How can I increase my downloads?