Assertion, knowledge, and action.

We argue against the knowledge rule of assertion, and in favour of integrating the account of assertion more tightly with our best theories of evidence and action. We think that the knowledge rule has an incredible consequence when it comes to practical deliberation, that it can be right for a perso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Studies Vol. 149; no. 1; pp. 99 - 119
Autores principales: Maitra, Ishani, Weatherson, Brian
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature May2010
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=50792162&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 50792162
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: May2010
      vid: 149
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        50792162
        10.1007/s11098-010-9542-z
      ppf: 99
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 276KB
      tig:
        atl: Assertion, knowledge, and action.
      aug:
        au:
          Maitra, Ishani
          Weatherson, Brian
        affil:
          Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, Newark, 430 Conklin Hall, 175 University Avenue Newark 07102 USA
          Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University & Arché, 1 Seminary Place New Brunswick 08901 USA
      su:
        Human acts (Ethics)
        Assertions (Logic)
        Theory of knowledge
        Philosophy
        Rhetorical theory
      sug:
        subj:
          Human acts (Ethics)
          Assertions (Logic)
          Theory of knowledge
          Philosophy
          Rhetorical theory
      keyword:
        Action
        Assertion
        Evidence
        Knowledge
        Luminosity
        Moore’s paradox
        Moore's paradox
      ab: We argue against the knowledge rule of assertion, and in favour of integrating the account of assertion more tightly with our best theories of evidence and action. We think that the knowledge rule has an incredible consequence when it comes to practical deliberation, that it can be right for a person to do something that she can’t properly assert she can do. We develop some vignettes that show how this is possible, and how odd this consequence is. We then argue that these vignettes point towards alternate rules that tie assertion to sufficient evidence-responsiveness or to proper action. These rules have many of the virtues that are commonly claimed for the knowledge rule, but lack the knowledge rule’s problematic consequences when it comes to assertions about what to do.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2010. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2010
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N