David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 78 (5):1069-1079 (2013)
In ‘Single premise deduction and risk’ (2008) Maria Lasonen-Aarnio argues that there is a kind of epistemically threatening risk that can accumulate over the course of drawing single premise deductive inferences. As a result, we have a new reason for denying that knowledge is closed under single premise deduction—one that mirrors a familiar reason for denying that knowledge is closed under multiple premise deduction. This sentiment has more recently been echoed by others (see Schechter 2011). In this paper, I will argue that, although there is a kind of risk that can accumulate over the course of drawing single premise deductive inferences, it is importantly different to the kind of risk that multiple premise deductive inferences can introduce. Having distinguished these two kinds of risk, I shall offer some reasons for thinking that the kind associated with single premise deductions is, in fact, epistemically benign—it poses no threat, in and of itself, to the knowledge status of a belief. If this is right, then Lasonen-Aarnio’s argument against single premise closure is unsuccessful
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Timothy Williamson (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press.
Duncan Pritchard (2005). Epistemic Luck. Clarendon Press.
John Hawthorne (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.
John Hawthorne (2005). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden, Ma: Blackwell.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (2008). Single Premise Deduction and Risk. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):157 - 173.
Joshua Schechter (2013). Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):428-452.
John Kadvany (1997). Varieties of Risk Representations. Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.
John Turri (2008). Practical and Epistemic Justification in Alston's Perceiving God. Faith and Philosophy 25 (3):290 - 299.
Igor Douven & Jos Uffink (2012). Quantum Probabilities and the Conjunction Principle. Synthese 184 (1):109-114.
Céline Kermisch (2012). Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):91-102.
Federico Luzzi (2012). Interest-Relative Invariantism and Knowledge From Ignorance. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):31-42.
Rosemary J. Stevenson & David E. Over (2001). Reasoning From Uncertain Premises: Effects of Expertise and Conversational Context. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (4):367 – 390.
Lynne Rudder Baker (2002). Brief Reply to Rosenkrantz's Comments on My "the Ontological Status of Persons". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):394-396.
N. Athanassoulis & A. Ross (2010). A Virtue Ethical Account of Making Decisions About Risk. Journal of Risk Research 13 (2):217.
Richard Swinburne (1998). The Modal Argument is Not Circular. Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):371 - 372.
Dylan Dodd (2012). Evidentialism and Skeptical Arguments. Synthese 189 (2):337-352.
John T. Sanders (1994). The Attractiveness of Risk. American Society for Value Inquiry Newsletter 1994 (Fall).
Added to index2012-04-17
Total downloads58 ( #58,900 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?