David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Analytica 20 (2):3-25 (2005)
Two of the main forms of anti-scepticism in the contemporary literature—namely, neo-Mooreanism and attributer contextualism—share a common claim, which is that we are, contra the sceptic, able to know the denials of sceptical hypotheses. This paper begins by surveying the relative merits of these views when it comes to dealing with the standard closure-based formulation of the sceptical problem that is focussed on the possession of knowledge. It is argued, however, that it is not enough to simply deal with this version of the sceptical challenge, since there is a more fundamental sceptical problem underlying the standard closure-based sceptical argument that can be expressed in terms of the evidential basis of our beliefs. Whilst it is argued that neo-Mooreanism has a slight edge over attributer contextualism when it comes to dealing with the closure-based formulation of the sceptical problem, it is claimed that this view is in an ever stronger dialectical position when it comes to the more pressing evidential formulation of the sceptical problem. It is shown that this is so even if one adapts the attributer contextualist thesis along the lines suggested by Michael Williams and Ram Neta so that it is explicitly designed to deal with the evidential variant of the sceptical problem.
|Keywords||contextualism epistemology evidence neo-mooreanism scepticism|
|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
T. Black (2002). A Moorean Response to Brain-in-a-Vat Scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2):148 – 163.
Stewart Cohen (2000). Contextualism and Skepticism. Noûs 34 (s1):94-107.
K. DeRose (2002). Knowledge, Assertion, and Context. Philosophical Review 111:167-203.
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.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Duncan Pritchard (2002). Resurrecting the Moorean Response to the Sceptic. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (3):283 – 307.
Duncan Pritchard (2005). The Structure of Sceptical Arguments. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):37 - 52.
By Duncan Pritchard (2005). The Structure of Sceptical Arguments. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):37–52.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2010). Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies. Religious Studies 46 (4):509-523.
Duncan Pritchard (2006). McDowellian Neo-Mooreanism. In Fiona Macpherson & Adrian Haddock (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford University Press 283--310.
Duncan Pritchard (2005). Neo-Mooreanism Versus Contextualism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 69 (1):1-24.
Duncan Pritchard (2007). How to Be a Neo-Moorean. In Sanford Goldberg (ed.), Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology. Oxford University Press 68--99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #43,605 of 1,700,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #53,539 of 1,700,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?