Volume VI, Issue 3, 2015

KNOWLEDGE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING RIGHT (pages 265-289)

Davide FASSIO ABSTRACT: Some philosophers have recently argued that whether a true belief amounts to knowledge in a specific circumstance depends on features of the subject’s practical situation that are unrelated to the truth of the subject’s belief, such as the costs for the subject of being wrong about whether the believed proposition is true. One of the best-known arguments used …

Read More »

EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILISM AND MOOREAN DOGMATISM (pages 291-307)

Martin GRAJNER ABSTRACT: In this paper, I defend Moorean Dogmatism against a novel objection raised by Adam Leite. Leite locates the defectiveness of the Moorean reasoning explicitly not in the failure of the Moorean argument to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion but rather in the failure of an epistemic agent to satisfy certain epistemic responsibilities that arise in …

Read More »

TWO NEW COUNTEREXAMPLES TO THE TRUTH-TRACKING THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE (pages 309-311)

Tristan HAZE ABSTRACT: I present two counterexamples to the recently back-in-favour truth-tracking account of knowledge: one involving a true belief resting on a counterfactually robust delusion, one involving a true belief acquired alongside a bunch of false beliefs. These counterexamples carry over to a recent modification of the theory due to Rachael Briggs and Daniel Nolan, and seem invulnerable to a …

Read More »

CATEGORICITY, OPEN-ENDED SCHEMAS AND PEANO ARITHMETIC (pages 313-332)

Adrian LUDUȘAN ABSTRACT: One of the philosophical uses of Dedekind’s categoricity theorem for Peano Arithmetic is to provide support for semantic realism. To this end, the logical framework in which the proof of the theorem is conducted becomes highly significant. I examine different proposals regarding these logical frameworks and focus on the philosophical benefits of adopting open-ended schemas in contrast to …

Read More »

EXPLANATIONISM: DEFENDED ON ALL SIDES (pages 333-349)

Kevin McCAIN ABSTRACT: Explanationists about epistemic justification hold that justification depends upon explanatory considerations. After a bit of a lull, there has recently been a resurgence of defenses of such views. Despite the plausibility of these defenses, explanationism still faces challenges. Recently, T. Ryan Byerly and Kraig Martin have argued that explanationist views fail to provide either necessary or sufficient conditions …

Read More »

DOES SUPPOSITIONAL REASONING SOLVE THE BOOTSTRAPPING PROBLEM? (pages 351-363)

James VAN CLEVE ABSTRACT: In a 2002 article Stewart Cohen advances the “bootstrapping problem” for what he calls “basic justification theories,” and in a 2010 followup he offers a solution to the problem, exploiting the idea that suppositional reasoning may be used with defeasible as well as with deductive inference rules. To curtail the form of bootstrapping permitted by basic justification …

Read More »

IN DEFENSE OF THE KANTIAN ACCOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE: REPLY TO WHITING (pages 371-382)

Mark SCHROEDER ABSTRACT: In this paper I defend the view that knowledge is belief for reasons that are both objectively and subjectively sufficient from an important objection due to Daniel Whiting, in this journal. Whiting argues that this view fails to deal adequately with a familiar sort of counterexample to analyses of knowledge, fake barn cases. I accept Whiting’s conclusion that …

Read More »