Reply to Nagel 5/23; 18bot+end
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The key test cases for deciding between my brand of contextualism and Jennifer Nagel’s brand of invariantism are the third-person examples. As matters currently stand, first-person cases, like my original Bank cases (pp. 1-2), are pretty useless here. Nagel can agree that the speaker’s claim to “know” in Case A and his admission that he doesn’t “know” in Case B are both true; she just accepts a different account of why it is that both assertions can be, and are, true, according to which it is because in B the speaker doesn’t meet the attitude requirement for knowledge, while he does meet that requirement in A. Perhaps not at all unexpectedly, I find my proposed explanation more plausible; presumably, Nagel sees things differently. We can try to hash this out, but extremely tricky questions, and no stable enough answers, about how to understand the attitude needed for knowledge derail this attempt to decide between accounts. But no worries: Without having to first decide these issues, third-person cases provide the natural test cases to decide between the views. We can use them to decide between theories, and then go back to the first-person cases and apply what we’ve learned from the third-person cases to guide our handling of the trickier firstperson cases
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony Brueckner (2005). Contextualism, Hawthorne's Invariantism and Third-Person Cases. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (219):315–318.
Christoph Kelp (2012). Do 'Contextualist Cases' Support Contextualism? Erkenntnis 76 (1):115-120.
Jennifer Nagel, Valerie San Juan & Raymond A. Mar (2013). Lay Denial of Knowledge for Justified True Beliefs. Cognition 129:652-661.
Stephen E. Braude (2005). Personal Identity and Postmortem Survival. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (2):226-249.
Jennifer Nagel (2012). The Attitude of Knowledge. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (3):678-685.
Shaun Nichols (2008). Imagination and theI. Mind and Language 23 (5):518-535.
Jakob Elster (2011). How Outlandish Can Imaginary Cases Be? Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3):241-258.
Jennifer Nagel (2012). Mindreading in Gettier Cases and Skeptical Pressure Cases. In Jessica Brown & Mikkel Gerken (eds.), Knowledge Ascriptions. Oxford University Press
Joshua May, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Jay G. Hull & Aaron Zimmerman (2010). Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: An Empirical Study. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2):265–273.
Norton Nelkin (1987). What is It Like to Be a Person? Mind and Language 2 (3):220-41.
Jennifer Nagel (2013). Motivating Williamson's Model Gettier Cases. Inquiry 56 (1):54-62.
Igor Douven (2005). A Contextualist Solution to the Gettier Problem. Grazer Philosophische Studien 69 (1):207-228.
Jim Stone (2013). 'Unlucky' Gettier Cases. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):421-430.
Colin Klein (2009). Reduction Without Reductionism: A Defence of Nagel on Connectability. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):39 - 53.
Terence Rajivan Edward (2009). Nagel on Concievability. Abstracta 5 (1):16-29.
Added to index2011-06-21
Total downloads42 ( #96,296 of 1,792,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,828 of 1,792,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?