Philosophical Investigations 33 (4):339-359 (2010)
|Abstract||Fallibilism is ubiquitous in contemporary epistemology. I argue that a paradox about knowledge, generated by considerations of truth, shows that fallibilism can only deliver knowledge in lucky circumstances. Specifically, since it is possible that we are brains-in-vats (BIVs), it is possible that all our beliefs are wrong. Thus, the fallibilist can know neither whether or not we have much knowledge about the world nor whether or not we know any specific proposition, and so the warrant of our knowledge-claims is much reduced and second-order skepticism is generated. Since this is the case in both skeptical and everyday contexts, contextualism cannot resolve the paradox.|
|Keywords||fallibilism contextualism epistemic luck knowledge second-order skepticism truth Brains in Vats relevant alternatives|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Baron Reed (2002). How to Think About Fallibilism. Philosophical Studies 107 (2):143-157.
Jason Stanley (2008). Knowledge and Certainty. Philosophical Issues 18 (1):35-57.
Elke Brendel & Christoph Jäger (2004). Contextualist Approaches to Epistemology: Problems and Prospects. Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):143 - 172.
Dylan Dodd (2011). Against Fallibilism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (4):665 - 685.
Stephen Hetherington, Fallibilism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sarah Wright (2010). Virtues, Social Roles, and Contextualism. Metaphilosophy 41 (1):95-114.
Jay Newhard (2012). The Argument From Skepticism for Contextualism. Philosophia 40 (3):563-575.
Jason Stanley (2005). Fallibilism and Concessive Knowledge Attributions. Analysis 65 (286):126–131.
Anthony Brueckner (2005). Fallibilism, Underdetermination, and Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2):384–391.
Added to index2010-04-27
Total downloads97 ( #6,823 of 556,896 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #27,428 of 556,896 )
How can I increase my downloads?