Interests, evidence and games

Episteme 15 (3):329-344 (2018)
Authors
Brian Weatherson
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Abstract
Pragmatic encroachment theories have a problem with evidence. On the one hand, the arguments that knowledge is interest-relative look like they will generalise to show that evidence too is interest-relative. On the other hand, our best story of how interests affect knowledge presupposes an interest-invariant notion of evidence. The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of evidence that is interest-relative, but which allows that ‘best story’ to go through with minimal changes. The core idea is that the evidence someone has is just what evidence a radical interpreter says they have. And a radical interpreter is playing a kind of game with the person they are interpreting. The cases that pose problems for pragmatic encroachment theorists generate fascinating games between the interpreter and the interpretee. They are games with multiple equilibria. To resolve them we need to detour into the theory of equilibrium selection. I’ll argue that the theory we need is the theory of risk-dominant equilibria. That theory will tell us how the interpreter will play the game, which in turn will tell us what evidence the person has. The evidence will be interest-relative, because what the equilibrium of the game is will be interest-relative. But it will not undermine the story we tell about how interests usually affect knowledge.
Keywords knowledge  evidence  games  pragmatic encroachment  subject sensitive invariantism  interest relative invariantism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/epi.2018.26
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 Lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and Practical Interests.Jason Stanley - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
The Unreliability of Naive Introspection.Eric Schwitzgebel - 2006 - Philosophical Review 117 (2):245-273.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Deception and the Evolution of Plasticity.Rory Smead - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (5):852-865.
Conventional Semantic Meaning in Signalling Games with Conflicting Interests.Elliott O. Wagner - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4):751-773.
Games and Logic.Gabriel Sandu - 2013 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 8 (1).
Are Video Games Art?Aaron Smuts - 2005 - Contemporary Aesthetics 3.
Generalized Externality Games.Paula Corcho & José Luis Ferreira - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (2):163-184.
Message Exchange Games in Strategic Contexts.Nicholas Asher, Soumya Paul & Antoine Venant - 2017 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 46 (4):355-404.
Games and Family Resemblances.Jim Stone - 1994 - Philosophical Investigations 17 (No. 2): 435-443.
Formal Games and Forms for Games.Neil Tennant - 1980 - Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2):311 - 320.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-02

Total downloads
41 ( #159,583 of 2,302,807 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #13,903 of 2,302,807 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature