Quassim Cassam
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780198826903
- eISBN:
- 9780191865824
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198826903.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s ...
More
This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s dogmatism paradox and Kuhn’s view that dogmatism can play a positive role in normal science. This chapter argues that the supposed epistemic benefits of dogmatism have been greatly exaggerated and its epistemic drawbacks underestimated. The appropriate response to the claims of Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists is not to avoid or ignore them but to rebut them. Knowers have responsibilities, including the responsibility not to dismiss challenges to their beliefs without good reason.Less
This chapter discusses the view, associated with David Hume and Saul Kripke, that the supposed epistemic vice of dogmatism can play a positive role in protecting our knowledge. It discusses Kripke’s dogmatism paradox and Kuhn’s view that dogmatism can play a positive role in normal science. This chapter argues that the supposed epistemic benefits of dogmatism have been greatly exaggerated and its epistemic drawbacks underestimated. The appropriate response to the claims of Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists is not to avoid or ignore them but to rebut them. Knowers have responsibilities, including the responsibility not to dismiss challenges to their beliefs without good reason.
Jody Azzouni
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- October 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780197508817
- eISBN:
- 9780197508848
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780197508817.003.0011
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
A definition of fallibility shows that agents are fallible about necessary truths. It is shown that fallibility of agents implies a denial of parity reasoning. Moorean paradoxes appear to undercut ...
More
A definition of fallibility shows that agents are fallible about necessary truths. It is shown that fallibility of agents implies a denial of parity reasoning. Moorean paradoxes appear to undercut fallibility, but they are due entirely to the factivity of “know.” Kripke’s dogmatism paradox is explained: the key is recognizing that knowledge fallibility applies to the knowledge that all evidence against something one knows is misleading. That we do not know we will lose a lottery is denied. Fallibility shows this. And that people argue over this also indicates this. Knowledge closure fails because of fallibility; so does aggregation of assumptions. Vagueness shows why debates about whether we know outcomes of lotteries before winning tickets are drawn are irresolvable. Irrational penny reasoning is analyzed; it applies to nonfactive attitudes such as being really really sure. Preface paradoxes are explained. That it is sometimes rational to believe contradictory propositions is explained.Less
A definition of fallibility shows that agents are fallible about necessary truths. It is shown that fallibility of agents implies a denial of parity reasoning. Moorean paradoxes appear to undercut fallibility, but they are due entirely to the factivity of “know.” Kripke’s dogmatism paradox is explained: the key is recognizing that knowledge fallibility applies to the knowledge that all evidence against something one knows is misleading. That we do not know we will lose a lottery is denied. Fallibility shows this. And that people argue over this also indicates this. Knowledge closure fails because of fallibility; so does aggregation of assumptions. Vagueness shows why debates about whether we know outcomes of lotteries before winning tickets are drawn are irresolvable. Irrational penny reasoning is analyzed; it applies to nonfactive attitudes such as being really really sure. Preface paradoxes are explained. That it is sometimes rational to believe contradictory propositions is explained.
Ernest Sosa
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- January 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780691183268
- eISBN:
- 9781400883059
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691183268.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter analyses Saul Kripke's dogmatism paradox. It argues that, in order to address properly that puzzle, one needs a notion of epistemic negligence that fits naturally within a ...
More
This chapter analyses Saul Kripke's dogmatism paradox. It argues that, in order to address properly that puzzle, one needs a notion of epistemic negligence that fits naturally within a virtue-theoretic framework. Kripke's puzzle concerns a prospective intention to close one's mind. A second puzzle is closely related. Instead of the prospective intention, it concerns an antecedent belief: namely, that any further evidence will be misleading if negative. Once you attain knowledge, you virtually know that any contrary evidence will be misleading and is best ignored. When negative evidence does come forth at some later time, scholars wonder whether a person should ignore it in accordance with what they already know. This problem is resolved by noting that knowledge can be lost with a change of evidence.Less
This chapter analyses Saul Kripke's dogmatism paradox. It argues that, in order to address properly that puzzle, one needs a notion of epistemic negligence that fits naturally within a virtue-theoretic framework. Kripke's puzzle concerns a prospective intention to close one's mind. A second puzzle is closely related. Instead of the prospective intention, it concerns an antecedent belief: namely, that any further evidence will be misleading if negative. Once you attain knowledge, you virtually know that any contrary evidence will be misleading and is best ignored. When negative evidence does come forth at some later time, scholars wonder whether a person should ignore it in accordance with what they already know. This problem is resolved by noting that knowledge can be lost with a change of evidence.
Jody Azzouni
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- October 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780197508817
- eISBN:
- 9780197508848
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780197508817.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
The word “know” is revealed as vague, applicable to fallible agents, factive, and criterion-transcendent. It is invariant in its meaning across contexts and invariant relative to different agents. ...
More
The word “know” is revealed as vague, applicable to fallible agents, factive, and criterion-transcendent. It is invariant in its meaning across contexts and invariant relative to different agents. Only purely epistemic properties affect its correct application—not the interests of agents or those who attribute the word to agents. These properties enable “know” to be applied correctly—as it routinely is—to cognitive agents ranging from sophisticated human knowers, who engage in substantial metacognition, to various animals, who know much less and do much less, if any, metacognition, to nonconscious mechanical devices such as drones, robots, and the like. These properties of the word “know” suffice to explain the usage phenomena that contextualists and subject-sensitive invariantists invoke to place pressure on an understanding of the word that treats its application as involving no interests of agents, or others. It is also shown that the factivity and the fallibilist-compatibility of the word “know” explain Moorean paradoxes, the preface paradox, and the lottery paradox. A fallibility-sensitive failure of knowledge closure is given along with a similar failure of rational-belief closure. The latter explains why rational agents can nevertheless believe A and B, where A and B contradict each other. A substantial discussion of various kinds of metacognition is given—as well as a discussion of the metacognition literature in cognitive ethology. An appendix offers a new resolution of the hangman paradox, one that turns neither on a failure of knowledge closure nor on a failure of KK.Less
The word “know” is revealed as vague, applicable to fallible agents, factive, and criterion-transcendent. It is invariant in its meaning across contexts and invariant relative to different agents. Only purely epistemic properties affect its correct application—not the interests of agents or those who attribute the word to agents. These properties enable “know” to be applied correctly—as it routinely is—to cognitive agents ranging from sophisticated human knowers, who engage in substantial metacognition, to various animals, who know much less and do much less, if any, metacognition, to nonconscious mechanical devices such as drones, robots, and the like. These properties of the word “know” suffice to explain the usage phenomena that contextualists and subject-sensitive invariantists invoke to place pressure on an understanding of the word that treats its application as involving no interests of agents, or others. It is also shown that the factivity and the fallibilist-compatibility of the word “know” explain Moorean paradoxes, the preface paradox, and the lottery paradox. A fallibility-sensitive failure of knowledge closure is given along with a similar failure of rational-belief closure. The latter explains why rational agents can nevertheless believe A and B, where A and B contradict each other. A substantial discussion of various kinds of metacognition is given—as well as a discussion of the metacognition literature in cognitive ethology. An appendix offers a new resolution of the hangman paradox, one that turns neither on a failure of knowledge closure nor on a failure of KK.