David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 162 (1):133 - 156 (2008)
The interest of epistemic comparative conditionals comes from the fact that they represent genuine ‘comparative epistemic relations’ between propositions, situations, evidences, abilities, interests, etc. This paper argues that various types of epistemic comparative conditionals uniformly represent comparative epistemic relations via the comparison of epistemic positions rather than the comparison of epistemic standards. This consequence is considered as a general constraint on a theory of knowledge attribution, and then further used to argue against the contextualist thesis that, in some cases, considering a new counter- possibility can raise the epistemic standard of knowledge attribution. Instead, the paper shows that considering a new counter-possibility can only lower the epistemic position of a putative knower. Moreover, since the comparison, by the nature of conditionals, is free from any commitment to the truth-values of specific knowledge attributions, my conclusion is free from the debate between contextualism and invariantism on whether the truth-value of a knowledge attribution can actually vary with context.
|Keywords||Epistemic comparative conditionals Comparative epistemic relations Epistemic standards Epistemic positions Knowledge attributions Contextualism Invariantism|
|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
John Hawthorne (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Jason Stanley (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford University Press.
Edmund Gettier (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23 (6):121-123.
David Lewis (1996). Elusive Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):549 – 567.
Citations of this work BETA
Eric McCready (2012). Emotive Equilibria. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (3):243-283.
Similar books and articles
Moritz Schulz (2013). Modalised Conditionals: A Response to Willer. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):673-682.
Moritz Schulz (2010). Wondering What Might Be. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):367 - 386.
John Cantwell (2008). Indicative Conditionals:Factual or Epistemic? Studia Logica 88 (1):157 - 194.
Elisabeth Pacherie (1995). Do We See with Microscopes? The Monist 78 (2):171-188.
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
Don Fallis (2005). Epistemic Value Theory and Social Epistemology. Episteme 2 (3):177-188.
Jason Stanley (2007). Précis of Knowledge and Practical Interests. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):168–172.
Matthew Chrisman (2007). From Epistemic Contextualism to Epistemic Expressivism. Philosophical Studies 135 (2):225-254.
Cian Dorr & John Hawthorne (2013). Embedding Epistemic Modals. Mind 122 (488):867-914.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #140,679 of 1,792,066 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #207,127 of 1,792,066 )
How can I increase my downloads?