David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 149 (1):99 - 118 (2010)
We argue against the <span class='Hi'>knowledge</span> rule of assertion, and in favour of integrating the account of assertion more tightly with our best theories of evidence and <span class='Hi'>action</span>. We think that the <span class='Hi'>knowledge</span> rule has an incredible consequence when it comes to practical deliberation, that it can be right for a person to do something that she can't properly assert she can do. We develop some vignettes that show how this is possible, and how odd this consequence is. We then argue that these vignettes point towards alternate rules that tie assertion to sufficient evidence-responsiveness or to proper <span class='Hi'>action</span>. These rules have many of the virtues that are commonly claimed for the <span class='Hi'>knowledge</span> rule, but lack the <span class='Hi'>knowledge</span> rule's problematic consequences when it comes to assertions about what to do.
|Keywords||Assertion Knowledge Evidence Action Luminosity Moore’s paradox|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jason Stanley (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford University Press.
John Hawthorne (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.
David Lewis (1996). Elusive Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):549 – 567.
Keith DeRose (2002). Assertion, Knowledge, and Context. Philosophical Review 111 (2):167-203.
Igor Douven (2006). Assertion, Knowledge, and Rational Credibility. Philosophical Review 115 (4):449-485.
Citations of this work BETA
Mikkel Gerken (2014). Same, Same but Different: The Epistemic Norms of Assertion, Action and Practical Reasoning. Philosophical Studies 168 (3):725-744.
Neil Mehta (2015). Knowledge and Other Norms for Assertion, Action, and Belief: A Teleological Account. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (1).
Peter Pagin (2015). Problems with Norms of Assertion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (1).
John N. Williams (2015). Moore's Paradox in Thought: A Critical Survey. Philosophy Compass 10 (1):24-37.
Brian Ball (2014). The Knowledge Rule and the Action Rule. Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (4):552-574.
Similar books and articles
Matthew A. Benton (2011). Two More for the Knowledge Account of Assertion. Analysis 71 (4):684-687.
Declan Smithies (2012). The Normative Role of Knowledge. Noûs 46 (2):265-288.
David Sosa (2009). Dubious Assertions. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):269 - 272.
Jonathan Schaffer (2008). Knowledge in the Image of Assertion. Philosophical Issues 18 (1):1-19.
Martijn Blaauw & Jeroen de Ridder (2012). Unsafe Assertions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):1-5.
Adam Leite (2007). How to Link Assertion and Knowledge Without Going Contextualist: A Reply to DeRose's "Assertion, Knowledge, and Context". Philosophical Studies 134 (2):111 - 129.
John Turri (2011). The Express Knowledge Account of Assertion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (1):37-45.
Frank Hindriks (2007). The Status of the Knowledge Account of Assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):393-406.
Joseph Shieber (2009). Epistemological Contextualism and the Knowledge Account of Assertion. Philosophia 37 (1):169-181.
Added to index2009-07-31
Total downloads163 ( #21,298 of 1,792,850 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #37,773 of 1,792,850 )
How can I increase my downloads?