Discussion Notes/Debate, VIII, 1

Discussion Notes/Debate, VIII, 1

METHODS MATTER: BEATING THE BACKWARD CLOCK (pages 99-112)

Murray Clarke, Fred Adams, and John A. Barker ABSTRACT: In “Beat the (Backward) Clock,” we argued that John Williams and Neil Sinhababu’s Backward Clock Case fails to be a counterexample to Robert Nozick’s or Fred Dretske’s Theories of Knowledge. Williams’ reply to our paper, “There’s Nothing to Beat a Backward Clock: A Rejoinder to Adams, Barker and Clarke,” is a further ... Read More »

REPLY TO SIMION (pages 113-116)

Jonathan L. Kvanvig ABSTRACT: Mona Simion questions whether there is a distinction between taking back an assertion and taking back only the content of an assertion, as I have claimed. After arguing against the distinction in question, Simion grants that there is a difference between the cases that I use to illustrate the distinction, and thus turns to the task of explaining ... Read More »

UNDAUNTED EXPLANATIONISM (pages 117-127)

Kevin McCAIN ABSTRACT: Explanationism is a plausible view of epistemic justification according to which justification is a matter of explanatory considerations. Despite its plausibility, explanationism is not without its critics. In a recent issue of this journal T. Ryan Byerly and Kraig Martin have charged that explanationism fails to provide necessary or sufficient conditions for epistemic justification. In this article I ... Read More »

WHY GETTIER CASES ARE STILL MISLEADING: A REPLY TO ATKINS (pages 129-139)

Moti MIZRAHI ABSTRACT: In this paper, I respond to Philip Atkins’ reply to my attempt to explain why Gettier cases (and Gettier-style cases) are misleading. I have argued that Gettier cases (and Gettier-style cases) are misdealing because the candidates for knowledge in such cases contain ambiguous designators. Atkins denies that Gettier’s original cases contain ambiguous designators and offers his intuition that ... Read More »

WEIGHING THE AIM OF BELIEF AGAIN (pages 141-145)

Asbjørn STEGLICH-PETERSEN ABSTRACT: In his influential discussion of the aim of belief, David Owens argues that any talk of such an ‘aim’ is at best metaphorical. In order for the ‘aim’ of belief to be a genuine aim, it must be weighable against other aims in deliberation, but Owens claims that this is impossible. In previous work, I have pointed out ... Read More »

ANOTHER DEFENCE OF OWENS’S EXCLUSIVITY OBJECTION TO BELIEFS HAVING AIMS (pages 147-153)

SULLIVAN-BISSETT and Paul NOORDHOF ABSTRACT: David Owens objected to the truth-aim account of belief on the grounds that the putative aim of belief does not meet a necessary condition on aims, namely, that aims can be weighed against other aims. If the putative aim of belief cannot be weighed, then belief does not have an aim after all. Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen responded ... Read More »

INFERENCES, EXPERIENCES, AND THE MYTH OF THE GIVEN: A REPLY TO CHAMPAGNE (pages 155-162)

Thomas Wilk ABSTRACT: In a recent article in this journal, Marc Champagne leveled an argument against what Wilfrid Sellars dubbed ‘the Myth of the Given.’ Champagne contends that what is given in observation in the form of a sensation must be able to both cause and justify propositionally structured beliefs. He argues for this claim by attempting to show that one ... Read More »

Optimizare SEO Carucioare copii Carucioare 3 in 1