Noûs (forthcoming)

Authors
Ben Holguín
New York University
Abstract
This paper argues that two widely accepted principles about the indicative conditional jointly presuppose the falsity of one of the most prominent arguments against epistemological iteration principles. The first principle about the indicative conditional, which has close ties both to the Ramsey test and the “or-to-if” inference, says that knowing a material conditional suffices for knowing the corresponding indicative. The second principle says that conditional contradictions cannot be true when their antecedents are epistemically possible. Taken together, these principles entail that it is impossible to be in a certain kind of epistemic state: namely, a state of ignorance about which of two partially overlapping bodies of knowledge corresponds to one’s actual one. However, some of the more popular “margin for error” style arguments against epistemological iteration principles suggest that such states are not only possible, but commonplace. I argue that the tension between these views runs deep, arising just as much for non-factive attitudes like belief, presupposition, and certainty. I also argue that this is worse news for those who accept the principles about the indicative conditional than it is for those who reject epistemological iteration principles.
Keywords conditionals  iteration principles  KK  Ramsey's test  margin for error  material indication  daisy chain
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/nous.12312
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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 - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):452-458.
Common Ground.Robert Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.
Assertion, Knowledge, and Context.Keith DeRose - 2002 - Philosophical Review 111 (2):167-203.
On Conditionals.Dorothy Edgington - 1995 - Mind 104 (414):235-329.
``Assertion, Knowledge, and Context&Quot.Keith DeRose - 2002 - Philosophical Review 111 (2):167-203.

View all 52 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Against the Ramsey Test.A. Morton - 2004 - Analysis 64 (4):294-299.
Betting on Conditionals.Guy Politzer, David P. Over & Jean Baratgin - 2010 - Thinking and Reasoning 16 (3):172-197.
Biscuit Conditionals and Prohibited ‘Then’.Julia Zakkou - 2017 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):84-92.
Conditional Preferences and Practical Conditionals.Nate Charlow - 2013 - Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (6):463-511.
The Ramsey Test and Conditional Semantics.Frank Döring - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (4):359-376.
Defending truth values for indicative conditionals.Kelly Weirich - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (6):1635-1657.
Defending a Simple Theory of Conditionals.Adam Rieger - 2015 - American Philosophical Quarterly 52 (3):253-260.
Conditionals, Indeterminacy, and Triviality.Justin Khoo - 2013 - Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):260-287.
Ifs, Though, and Because.Hans Rott - 1986 - Erkenntnis 25 (3):345-370.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-09-18

Total views
209 ( #38,823 of 2,324,924 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
68 ( #8,250 of 2,324,924 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes