Fallibilism, closure, and pragmatic encroachment.

I argue that fallibilism, single-premise epistemic closure, and one formulation of the 'knowledge-action principle' are inconsistent. I will consider a possible way to avoid this incompatibility, by advocating a pragmatic constraint on belief in general, rather than just knowledge. But I will conclu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Studies Vol. 173; no. 10; pp. 2745 - 2758
Autor principal: Zweber, Adam
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Oct2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=118192599&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 118192599
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2016
      vid: 173
      iid: 10
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        118192599
        10.1007/s11098-016-0631-5
      ppf: 2745
      ppct: 13
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 390KB
      tig:
        atl: Fallibilism, closure, and pragmatic encroachment.
      aug:
        au: Zweber, Adam
        affil: Department of Philosophy , Western Michigan University , Kalamazoo 49008-5328 USA
      su:
        Fallibilism
        Theory of knowledge
        Pragmatics
        Inconsistency (Logic)
        Fantl, Jeremy
      sug:
        subj:
          Fallibilism
          Theory of knowledge
          Pragmatics
          Inconsistency (Logic)
          Fantl, Jeremy
      keyword:
        Epistemic closure
        Jeremy Fantl
        Matthew McGrath
        Pragmatic encroachment
      ab: I argue that fallibilism, single-premise epistemic closure, and one formulation of the 'knowledge-action principle' are inconsistent. I will consider a possible way to avoid this incompatibility, by advocating a pragmatic constraint on belief in general, rather than just knowledge. But I will conclude that this is not a promising option for defusing the problem. I do not argue here for any one way of resolving the inconsistency.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2016
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N