Oxford Studies in Epistemology 3:35-62 (2010)
The following is not a successful skeptical scenario: you think you know you have hands, but maybe you don't! Why is that a failure, when it's far more likely than, say, the evil genius hypothesis? That's the question.<br><br>This is an earlier draft.
|Keywords||contextualism knowledge skepticism luminosity nozick subjunctive conditionals sensitivity DeRose|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sensitivity, Causality, and Statistical Evidence in Courts of Law.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2015 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (2):102-112.
A Problem for Rationalist Responses to Skepticism.Sinan Dogramaci - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (2):355-369.
Similar books and articles
Quantifiers and Epistemic Contextualism.Jonathan Ichikawa - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 155 (3):383-398.
Margins for Error and Sensitivity: What Nozick Might Have Said. [REVIEW]Kelly Becker - 2009 - Acta Analytica 24 (1):17-31.
Antiskeptical Conditionals.Theodore J. Everett - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (3):505–536.
Skepticism, Sensitivity, and Closure, or Why the Closure Principle is Irrelevant to External World Skepticism.Adam Leite - 2004 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 12 (3):335-350.
Contextualism on a Pragmatic, Not a Skeptical, Footing.Bruce Russell - 2005 - Acta Analytica 20 (2):26-37.
Added to index2010-02-15
Total downloads1,371 ( #291 of 2,143,797 )
Recent downloads (6 months)127 ( #848 of 2,143,797 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.