Safety and Necessity.

Can epistemic luck be captured by modal conditions such as safety from error? This paper answers 'no'. First, an old problem is cast in a new light: it is argued that the trivial satisfaction associated with necessary truths and accidentally robust propositions is a symptom of a more general disease...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Erkenntnis Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 1081 - 1098
Autor principal: Paterson, Niall J.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2022
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=158079762&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 158079762
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01650106
        5KZ
      jtl: Erkenntnis
      issn: 01650106
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2022
      vid: 87
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158079762
        10.1007/s10670-020-00231-6
      ppf: 1081
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 742KB
      tig:
        atl: Safety and Necessity.
      aug:
        au: Paterson, Niall J.
        affil: Helsinki, Finland
      su:
        Explanation
        Philosophy of science
        Safety
      sug:
        subj:
          Explanation
          Philosophy of science
          Safety
      ab: Can epistemic luck be captured by modal conditions such as safety from error? This paper answers 'no'. First, an old problem is cast in a new light: it is argued that the trivial satisfaction associated with necessary truths and accidentally robust propositions is a symptom of a more general disease. Namely, epistemic luck but not safety from error is hyperintensional. Second, it is argued that as a consequence the standard solution to deal with this worry, namely the invocation of content variation, fails. Third, it is considered whether the condition can serve some restricted theoretical role; the hypothesis is rejected. Finally, it is tentatively suggested that epistemic luck's hyperintensionality derives from its being an explanatory notion, and an analogy is drawn with failures of probabilstic conceptions of explanation in the philosophy of science.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Erkenntnis is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Erkenntnis
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N