David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 47 (3):577-601 (2013)
What is it to know more? By what metric should the quantity of one's knowledge be measured? I start by examining and arguing against a very natural approach to the measure of knowledge, one on which how much is a matter of how many. I then turn to the quasi-spatial notion of counterfactual distance and show how a model that appeals to distance avoids the problems that plague appeals to cardinality. But such a model faces fatal problems of its own. Reflection on what the distance model gets right and where it goes wrong motivates a third approach, which appeals not to cardinality, nor to counterfactual distance, but to similarity. I close the paper by advocating this model and briefly discussing some of its significance for epistemic normativity. In particular, I argue that the 'trivial truths' objection to the view that truth is the goal of inquiry rests on an unstated, but false, assumption about the measure of knowledge, and suggest that a similarity model preserves truth as the aim of belief in an intuitively satisfying way.
|Keywords||aim of belief goal of inquiry trivial truths similarity epistemic normativity significance aim of inquiry epistemic good understanding knowledge|
|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
W. V. Quine (1960). Word and Object. The MIT Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Paulina Sliwa (2015). IV—Understanding and Knowing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 115 (1pt1):57-74.
Similar books and articles
Matthew Chrisman (2010). The Aim of Belief and the Goal of Truth. In James O.’Shea Eric Rubenstein (ed.), elf, Language, and World: Problems from Kant, Sellars, and Rosenberg. Ridgeview Publishing Co.
Conor Mchugh (2011). What Do We Aim At When We Believe? Dialectica 65 (3):369-392.
Daniel Whiting (2012). Does Belief Aim at the Truth? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):279-300.
Ernest Sosa (2009). Knowing Full Well: The Normativity of Beliefs as Performances. Philosophical Studies 142 (1):5 - 15.
Clayton Littlejohn (2010). Moore's Paradox and Epistemic Norms. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.
Berit Brogaard (2008). The Trivial Argument for Epistemic Value Pluralism. Or How I Learned to Stop Caring About Truth. In Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press
NicK Treanor (2014). Trivial Truths and the Aim of Inquiry. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (3):552-559.
Ralph Wedgwood (2002). The Aim of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 36 (s16):267-97.
John Greco (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge University Press.
Claudine Tiercelin (2008). The Fixation of Knowledge and the Question-Answer Process of Inquiry. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1):23-44.
Roberto Festa (1986). A Measure for the Distance Between an Interval Hypothesis and the Truth. Synthese 67 (2):273 - 320.
Guy Axtell (2011). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge – Ernest Sosa. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):203-205.
Added to index2011-10-21
Total downloads173 ( #20,701 of 1,907,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)37 ( #21,783 of 1,907,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?