10 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Aleks Knoks [8]Aleks Https://Orcidorg Knoks [2]
  1. Conciliatory Reasoning, Self-Defeat, and Abstract Argumentation.Aleks Https://Orcidorg Knoks - 2023 - Review of Symbolic Logic 16 (3):740-787.
    According to conciliatory views on the significance of disagreement, it’s rational for you to become less confident in your take on an issue in case your epistemic peer’s take on it is different. These views are intuitively appealing, but they also face a powerful objection: in scenarios that involve disagreements over their own correctness, conciliatory views appear to self-defeat and, thereby, issue inconsistent recommendations. This paper provides a response to this objection. Drawing on the work from defeasible logics paradigm and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2. Misleading higher-order evidence, conflicting ideals, and defeasible logic.Aleks Https://Orcidorg Knoks - 2021 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 8:141--74.
    Thinking about misleading higher-order evidence naturally leads to a puzzle about epistemic rationality: If one’s total evidence can be radically misleading regarding itself, then two widely-accepted requirements of rationality come into conflict, suggesting that there are rational dilemmas. This paper focuses on an often misunderstood and underexplored response to this (and similar) puzzles, the so-called conflicting-ideals view. Drawing on work from defeasible logic, I propose understanding this view as a move away from the default metaepistemological position according to which rationality (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  82
    Conciliatory views, higher-order disagreements, and defeasible logic.Aleks Knoks - 2022 - Synthese 200 (2).
    Conciliatory views of disagreement say, roughly, that it’s rational for you to become less confident in your take on an issue in case you find out that an epistemic peer’s take on it is the opposite. Their intuitive appeal notwithstanding, there are well-known worries about the behavior of conciliatory views in scenarios involving higher-order disagreements, which include disagreements over these views themselves and disagreements over the peer status of alleged epistemic peers. This paper does two things. First, it explains how (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  56
    Defeasibility in Epistemology.Aleks Knoks - 2020 - Dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park
    This work explores some ways in which logics for defeasible reasoning can be applied to questions in epistemology. It's naturally thought of as developing four applications: The first is concerned with simple epistemic rules, such as "If you perceives that X, then you ought to believe that X" and "If you have outstanding testimony that X, then you ought to believe that X." Anyone who thinks that such rules have a place in our accounts of epistemic normativity must explain what (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5.  48
    Epistemic conflicts and the form of epistemic rules.Aleks Knoks - 2024 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
    While such epistemic rules as 'If you perceive that X, you ought to believe that X' and 'If you have outstanding testimony that X, you ought to believe that X' seem to be getting at important truths, it is easy to think of cases in which they come into conflict. To avoid classifying such cases as dilemmas, one can hold either that epistemic rules have built-in unless-clauses listing the circumstances under which they don't apply, or, alternatively, that epistemic rules are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  96
    A Curious Dialogical Logic and its Composition Problem.Sara L. Uckelman, Jesse Alama & Aleks Knoks - 2014 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (6):1065-1100.
    Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Proponent who puts forward a logical formula φ as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether the set (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  7.  74
    Reasons in Weighted Argumentation Graphs.David Streit, Vincent de Wit & Aleks Knoks - 2023 - In Natasha Alechina, Andreas Herzig & Fei Liang (eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction: 9th International Workshop, LORI 2023, Jinan, China, October 26–29, 2023, Proceedings. Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 251-259.
    The philosophical literature that tackles foundational questions about normativity often appeals to normative reasons—or considerations that count in favor of or against actions—and their interaction. The interaction between normative reasons is usually made sense of by appealing to the metaphor of (normative) weight scales. This paper substitutes an argumentation-theoretic model for this metaphor. The upshot is a general and precise model that is faithful to the philosophical ideas.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  25
    Evidence and facts about incoherence: Reply to Schmidt.Aleks Knoks - 2023 - Asian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):1-11.
    In her recent `Facts about incoherence as non-evidential epistemic reasons‘ Eva Schmidt defends the claim that not all epistemic reasons are provided by evidence. Schmidt presents three cases describing agents with incoherent beliefs and argues that, in each case, the fact that an agent’s beliefs are incoherent provides her with a non-evidential epistemic reason to suspend judgment on the issue that her beliefs are about. While I find the suggestion that facts about incoherence can play positive roles in our cognitive (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  46
    Moral Principles: Hedged, Contributory, Mixed.Aleks Knoks - 2021 - In Deontic Logic and Normative Systems 2020/21.
    It's natural to think that the principles expressed by the statements "Promises ought to be kept" and "We ought to help those in need" are defeasible. But how are we to make sense of this defeasibility? On one proposal, moral principles have hedges or built-in unless clauses specifying the conditions under which the principle doesn't apply. On another, such principles are contributory and, thus, do not specify which actions ought to be carried out, but only what counts in favor or (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Deontic Logic and Normative Systems 2020/21.Aleks Knoks (ed.) - 2021
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark