Classical Invariantism and the Puzzle of Fallibilism.

This paper revisits a puzzle that arises for theories of knowledge according to which one can know on the basis of merely inductive grounds. No matter how strong such theories require inductive grounds to be if a belief based on them is to qualify as knowledge, there are certain beliefs (namely, abo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Southern Journal of Philosophy Vol. 46; no. 2; pp. 221 - 245
Autor principal: Kelp, Christoph
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Summer2008
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=33228117&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 33228117
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00384283
        2GW
      jtl: Southern Journal of Philosophy
      issn: 00384283
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Summer2008
      vid: 46
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        33228117
        10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00077.x
      ppf: 221
      ppct: 24
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 162KB
      tig:
        atl: Classical Invariantism and the Puzzle of Fallibilism.
      aug:
        au: Kelp, Christoph
        affil: Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven
      su:
        Theory of knowledge
        Philosophy
        Intellect
        Thought & thinking
        Apperception
        Lotteries
      sug:
        subj:
          Theory of knowledge
          Philosophy
          Intellect
          Thought & thinking
          Apperception
          Lotteries
      ab: This paper revisits a puzzle that arises for theories of knowledge according to which one can know on the basis of merely inductive grounds. No matter how strong such theories require inductive grounds to be if a belief based on them is to qualify as knowledge, there are certain beliefs (namely, about the outcome of fair lotteries) that are based on even stronger inductive grounds, while, intuitively, they do not qualify as knowledge. This paper discusses what is often regarded as the most promising classical invariantist solution to the puzzle, namely, that beliefs about the outcomes of fair lotteries do not qualify as knowledge because they are too lucky to do so (or, relatedly, because they do not satisfy a safety condition on knowledge), while other beliefs based on potentially weaker inductive grounds are not too lucky (or, relatedly, because they are safe). A case is presented that shows that this solution to the puzzle is actually not viable. It is argued that there is no obvious alternative solution in sight and that therefore the puzzle still awaits a classical invariantist solution.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Southern Journal of Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Southern Journal of Philosophy
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2008
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N