Philosophical Studies 139 (2):289 - 306 (2008)
Timothy Williamson has famously argued that the (KK) principle (roughly, that if one knows that p, then one knows that one knows that p) should be rejected. We analyze Williamson’s argument and show that its key premise is ambiguous, and that when it is properly stated this premise no longer supports the argument against (KK). After canvassing possible objections to our argument, we reflect upon some conclusions that suggest significant epistemological ramifications pertaining to the acquisition of knowledge from prior knowledge by deduction.
|Keywords||Epistemological principles KK principle Closure principle|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Epistemic Closure Under Deductive Inference: What is It and Can We Afford It?Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre - 2013 - Synthese 190 (14):2731-2748.
Probability and Scepticism.Brian Weatherson - 2014 - In Dylan Dodd Elia Zardini (ed.), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification. Oxford University Press. pp. 71-86.
Is Timothy Williamson a Necessary Existent?David Efird - 2010 - In Bob Hale & Aviv Hoffmann (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
Williamson on Knowledge, Action, and Causation.Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen - 2005 - SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):15-28.
Single Premise Deduction and Risk.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (2):157 - 173.
What Williamson's Anti-Luminosity Argument Really Is.Wai-hung Wong - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (4):536-543.
Williamson’s Argument Against the KK-Principle 157.Murali Ramachandran - 2005 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 1.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads179 ( #24,731 of 2,158,385 )
Recent downloads (6 months)51 ( #5,191 of 2,158,385 )
How can I increase my downloads?