Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2145-2168 (2018)

Authors
Marcello Di Bello
Arizona State University
Abstract
Epistemic closure under known implication is the principle that knowledge of "p" and knowledge of "p implies q", together, imply knowledge of "q". This principle is intuitive, yet several putative counterexamples have been formulated against it. This paper addresses the question, why is epistemic closure both intuitive and prone to counterexamples? In particular, the paper examines whether probability theory can offer an answer to this question based on four strategies. The first probability-based strategy rests on the accumulation of risks. The problem with this strategy is that risk accumulation cannot accommodate certain counterexamples to epistemic closure. The second strategy is based on the idea of evidential support, that is, a piece of evidence supports a proposition whenever it increases the probability of the proposition. This strategy makes progress and can accommodate certain putative counterexamples to closure. However, this strategy also gives rise to a number of counterintuitive results. Finally, there are two broadly probabilistic strategies, one based on the idea of resilient probability and the other on the idea of assumptions that are taken for granted. These strategies are promising but are prone to some of the shortcomings of the second strategy. All in all, I conclude that each strategy fails. Probability theory, then, is unlikely to offer the account we need.
Keywords Epistemic Closure  Probability Theory  Assumptions  Resiliency  Knowledge  Confirmation Theory  Warrant Transmission  Risk
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-0952-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and Lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2003 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Aboutness.Stephen Yablo - 2014 - Princeton University Press.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):200-201.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):105-116.

View all 51 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Strategy for Assessing Closure.Peter Murphy - 2006 - Erkenntnis 65 (3):365 - 383.
Questions, Topics and Restricted Closure.Peter Hawke - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (10):2759-2784.
Evidence and the Openness of Knowledge.Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (4):1001-1037.
Conditionalizing on Knowledge.Timothy Williamson - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):89-121.
When Does Epistemic Closure Fail?M. Yan - 2013 - Analysis 73 (2):260-264.
Open Knowledge and Changing the Subject.Stephen Yablo - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (4):1047-1071.
Causes and Probability-Raisers of Processes.Sungho Choi - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):81 – 91.
Dutch Strategies for Diachronic Rules: When Believers See the Sure Loss Coming.Brad Armendt - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:217 - 229.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-23

Total views
113 ( #104,786 of 2,518,142 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #66,556 of 2,518,142 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes