Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge

Harvard University Press (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

To attribute confusion to someone is to take up a paternalistic stance in evaluating his reasoning.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,140

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Theory of Knowledge Course: Syllabus and Teachers' Notes.Richard C. Whitfield (ed.) - 1976 - Department of Education, University of Aston in Birmingham [for] the International Baccalaureate Office.
The knowledge argument revisited.James P. Moreland - 2003 - International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):218-228.
Knowledge and evidence.John Hyman - 2006 - Mind 115 (460):891-916.
Value-Judgements and Values.Abdullah Kaygi - 2006 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:97-102.
Soviet Theory of Knowledge.Thomas J. Blakeley - 1964 - Dordrecht: Holland, D. Reidel Pub. Co..
Confusion: A study in the theory of knowledge.James B. Freeman - 2007 - Review of Metaphysics 60 (3):651-653.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
63 (#190,807)

6 months
4 (#182,797)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Mental Files.François Recanati - 2012 - Oxford University Press.
Replacing truth.Kevin Scharp - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (6):606 – 621.
Bootstrapping our way to samesaying.Laura Schroeter - 2012 - Synthese 189 (1):177-197.
Illusion of transparency.Laura Schroeter - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):597 – 618.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references