Contrastive Knowledge: Reply to Baumann

In Stefan Tolksdorf (ed.), The Concept of Knowledge. Walter de Gruyter (forthcoming)
Baumann (2008a) raises three main concerns for epistemic contrastivism. These lead him to a more complicated re-conception of knowledge, involving varying numbers of argument places for varying sorts of arguments. I will argue that these complications are unneeded. The more elegant and uniform contrastive treatment can resolve all of Baumann’s concerns, in a straightforward way.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Antti Karjalainen & Adam Morton (2003). Contrastive Knowledge. Philosophical Explorations 6 (2):74 – 89.
    Jonathan Schaffer (2005). Contrastive Causation. Philosophical Review 114 (3):327-358.
    Ren (2008). The Knowledge Relation: Binary or Ternary? Social Epistemology 22 (3):281 – 288.
    Jonathan Schaffer (2005). Contrastive Knowledge. In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1. Oxford University Press. 235.
    Stewart Cohen (2004). Reply to Baumann. Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):429 - 433.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    34 ( #43,036 of 1,088,398 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    3 ( #30,936 of 1,088,398 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.