Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217):557–569 (2004)
|Abstract||Gilbert Harman has presented an argument to the effect that if S knows that p then S knows that any evidence for not-p is misleading. Therefore S is warranted in being dogmatic about anything he happens to know. I explain, and reject, Sorensen's attempt to solve the paradox via Jackson's theory of conditionals. S is not in a position to disregard evidence even when he knows it to be misleading|
|Keywords||dogmatism puzzle junk knowledge|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nancy Cartwright (2009). Evidence-Based Policy: What's to Be Done About Relevance? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 143 (1):127 - 136.
J. Saul (2012). Just Go Ahead and Lie. Analysis 72 (1):3-9.
Alan Strudler (2010). The Distinctive Wrong in Lying. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (2):171 - 179.
Jeremy Howick (2011). The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Bmj Books.
Franz Dietrich & Christian List (2004). A Model of Jury Decisions Where All Jurors Have the Same Evidence. Synthese 142 (2):175 - 202.
Peter D. Klein (1979). Misleading "Misleading Defeaters&Quot;. Journal of Philosophy 76 (7):382-386.
Peter D. Klein (1980). Misleading Evidence and the Restoration of Justification. Philosophical Studies 37 (1):81 - 89.
Earl Conee (2001). Heeding Misleading Evidence. Philosophical Studies 103 (2):99-120.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Adina Roskies Teneille Brown Emily Murphy (2008). Brain Images as Legal Evidence. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 359-373.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,329 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?