Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (3):505–536 (2006)
AbstractEmpirical knowledge exists in the form of antiskeptical conditionals, which are propositions like [if I am not undetectably deceived, then I am holding a pen]. Such conditionals, despite their trivial appearance, have the same essential content as the categorical propositions that we usually discuss, and can serve the same functions in science and practical reasoning. This paper sketches out two versions of a general response to skepticism that employs these conditionals. The first says that our ordinary knowledge attributions can safely be replaced by statements using antiskeptical conditionals, which provides a way around the standard sort of skeptical argument while accepting its soundness with respect to the usual targets. The second analyzes the objects of our ordinary knowledge attributions as antiskeptical conditionals, which allows us to refute, not just evade, the skeptic's argument. Both versions compare favorably to the best-knowncurrent approaches to skepticism, including semantic contextualism
Similar books and articles
Subjunctive Biscuit and Stand-Off Conditionals.Eric Swanson - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):637-648.
Descartes' Skeptical and Antiskeptical Arguments.Barry Loewer - 1981 - Philosophical Studies 39 (2):163 - 182.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.