David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 189 (2):353-372 (2012)
Arguments for scepticism about perceptual knowledge are often said to have intuitively plausible premises. In this discussion I question this view in relation to an argument from ignorance and argue that the supposed persuasiveness of the argument depends on debatable background assumptions about knowledge or justification. A reasonable response to scepticism has to show there is a plausible epistemological perspective that can make sense of our having perceptual knowledge. I present such a perspective. In order give a more satisfying response to scepticism, we need also to consider the standing of background beliefs. This is required since the recognitional abilities that enable us to have perceptual knowledge are informed by, or presuppose, a picture or conception of the world the correctness of which we have not ascertained. The question is how, in the face of this, to make sense of responsible belief-formation. In addressing this problem I make a suggestion about the standing of certain crucial beliefs linking appearances with membership of kinds.
|Keywords||Scepticism Perceptual knowledge Recognitional abilities Justified belief Background beliefs Doxastic responsibility|
|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
J. Austin (1946). Other Minds. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 20:148-87.
Stewart Cohen (2002). Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):309-329.
Keith DeRose (1995). Solving the Skeptical Problem. Philosophical Review 104 (1):1-52.
Fred I. Dretske (1970). Epistemic Operators. Journal of Philosophy 67 (24):1007-1023.
John Greco (2007). The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge. Philosophical Issues 17 (1):57–69.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alan Millar (2008). Perceptual-Recognitional Abilities and Perceptual Knowledge. In Adrian Haddock & Fiona Macpherson (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford University Press. 330--47.
Danny Frederick (2013). Doxastic Voluntarism: A Sceptical Defence. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3 (1):24-44.
Alan Millar (2009). What is It That Cognitive Abilities Are Abilities to Do? Acta Analytica 24 (4):223-236.
Ram Neta (2004). Perceptual Evidence and the New Dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):199-214.
Barry Stroud (2009). Scepticism and the Senses. European Journal of Philosophy 17 (4):559-570.
Johannes Roessler (2009). Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Knowledge. Mind 118 (472):1013-1041.
Duncan Pritchard (2010). The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Oxford University Press.
Duncan Pritchard (2010). Relevant Alternatives, Perceptual Knowledge and Discrimination. Noûs 44 (2):245-268.
Sten Olaf Welding (2005). Kann Es Ein Argument Für den Skeptizismus Geben? Das Epistemische Problem der Irrtumsmöglichkeit. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (1):107 - 118.
John L. Pollock (1970). Perceptual Knowledge. Philosophical Review 80 (3):287-319.
Paul K. Moser (1989). Knowledge and Evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Anthony Brueckner & Gary Ebbs (2012). Debating Self-Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Christopher Hookway (1989). The Epicurean Argument: Determinism and Scepticism. Inquiry 32 (1):79 – 94.
Steven L. Reynolds (2013). Effective Sceptical Hypotheses. Theoria 79 (3):262-278.
Michael Pace (2008). Perceptual Knowledge and the Metaphysics of Experience. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):642-664.
Added to index2011-09-07
Total downloads59 ( #31,563 of 1,410,123 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #22,735 of 1,410,123 )
How can I increase my downloads?