Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (1):23-32 (2002)
So, C. I don’t know that T. Premises 1 and 2 are both plausible. However, C seems false—I do seem to know that there is a tree before me. AI presents a puzzle because its two plausible premises yield a conclusion whose negation is plausible. And no matter whether we accept or reject AI, we find that we must give up something plausible—either premise 1, premise 2, or the negation of C. But which of these should we give up? I call this question the skeptical puzzle.1 Recently, Mark Heller2 has argued that we can solve the skeptical puzzle by giving up premise 2. I argue, however, that Heller does not adequately respond to an objection to his proposed solution. I go on to argue that we can solve the skeptical puzzle by giving up premise 1
|Keywords||Conference Proceedings Contemporary Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Defending a Sensitive Neo-Moorean Invariantism.Tim Black - 2008 - In Vincent Hendricks & Duncan Pritchard (eds.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 8--27.
What's Wrong with Contextualism, and a Noncontextualist Resolution of the Skeptical Paradox.Mylan Engel Jr - 2004 - Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):203-231.
What's Wrong with Contextualism, and a Noncontextualist Resolution of the Skeptical Paradox.Mylan Engel Jr - 2004 - Erkenntnis 61 (2/3):203 - 231.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads69 ( #76,011 of 2,168,599 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #49,941 of 2,168,599 )
How can I increase my downloads?