David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 4 (1-4):228 – 269 (1961)
Abstract On the basis of Professor Ayer's The Problem of Knowledge, Mr. Stigen criticizes Ayer for defending a position which the sceptic does not attack. Ayer's ?descriptive analysis?, which is his answer to the sceptic, consists in an analysis of statements about, e.g. material objects or other minds into verifiable propositions. In other words, Ayer points to the fact that our statements are shown to be true by verification. However, according to Stigen, this analysis does not remove the sceptic's doubts, for the sceptic does not doubt that our statements are true; his attack is directed against the validity of those of my present beliefs for which I claim knowledge?status. The sceptic asks me to justify my claim that the statement is not only true, but that I have also good grounds now for being sure of it, i.e. that my present belief amounts to knowledge in virtue of its credibility. On this point, according to Stigen, Ayer offers no satisfactory solution
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alexander Bird (2001). Scepticism and Contrast Classes. Analysis 61 (2):97–107.
Alastair Hannay (1975). Giving the Sceptic a Good Name. Inquiry 18 (4):409 – 436.
Sarah Sawyer (1999). Am Externalist Account of Introspectve Knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 4 (4):358-78.
Luc Bovens (1999). The Value of Hope. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):667-681.
Wai-hung Wong (2002). The Problem of Insulation. Philosophy 77 (3):349-373.
Jeff Malpas (1994). Self-Knowledge and Scepticism. Erkenntnis 40 (2):165-184.
Anfinn Stigen (1961). Descriptive Analysis and the Sceptic. Inquiry 4 (1-4):228-269.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-02-04
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?