Synthese 190 (17):3695-3713 (2013)

Authors
Sharon Berry
Ashoka University
Abstract
In this paper I will argue that (principled) attempts to ground a priori knowledge in default reasonable beliefs cannot capture certain common intuitions about what is required for a priori knowledge. I will describe hypothetical creatures who derive complex mathematical truths like Fermat’s last theorem via short and intuitively unconvincing arguments. Many philosophers with foundationalist inclinations will feel that these creatures must lack knowledge because they are unable to justify their mathematical assumptions in terms of the kind of basic facts which can be known without further argument. Yet, I will argue that nothing in the current literature lets us draw a principled distinction between what these creatures are doing and paradigmatic cases of good a priori reasoning (assuming that the latter are to be grounded in default reasonable beliefs). I will consider, in turn, appeals to reliability, coherence, conceptual truth and indispensability and argue that none of these can do the job.
Keywords Epistemology  A priori  Basic knowledge
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0219-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,289
External links

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

Mathematical Truth.Paul Benacerraf - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (19):661-679.
Blind Reasoning.Paul Boghossian - 2003 - Supplement to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 77 (1):225-248.
The Runabout Inference-Ticket.A. N. Prior - 1960 - Analysis 21 (2):38.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

(Probably) Not Companions in Guilt.Sharon Berry - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2285-2308.
Small Steps and Great Leaps in Thought: The Epistemology of Basic Deductive Rules.Joshua Schechter - 2019 - In Magdalena Balcerak Jackson & Brendan Balcerak Jackson (eds.), Reasoning: New Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aiming at Aptness.Joshua Schechter - 2019 - Episteme 16 (4):438-452.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Rationality of Reasonableness.Alan Gewirth - 1983 - Synthese 57 (2):225 - 247.
Democratic Reasonableness.Thomas A. Spragens - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):193-214.
Defaults as Restrictions on Classical Hilbert-Style Proofs.Gianni Amati, Luigia Carlucci Aiello & Fiora Pirri - 1994 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 3 (4):303-326.
An Interpretation of Default Logic in Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic.Joeri Engelfriet & Jan Treur - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (3):369-388.
A Base Logic for Default Reasoning.Beihai Zhou & Yi Mao - 2006 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (4):688-709.
A Resource-Bounded Default Logic.Gregory Wheeler - 2004 - In J. Delgrande & T. Schaub (eds.), Proceedings of NMR 2004. AAAI.
Splitting Finite Default Theories: A Comparison of Two Approaches. [REVIEW]Grigoris Antoniou - 1999 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (2):205-216.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-12-06

Total views
83 ( #128,249 of 2,444,969 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,996 of 2,444,969 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes