What Does It Take to Know that You Know?

Acta Analytica 36 (3):443-449 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In some recent work, John N.Williams defends a new objection to the defeasibility theory of knowledge. But the objection is of wider interest, since Williams also suggests that this style of objection may undermine other theories of knowledge. I distinguish two versions of Williams’ objection. I then show that the first version relies on false conceptual principles, and the second relies on a specific and dubious conception of the goal of the analysis of knowledge.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-12

Downloads
354 (#80,695)

6 months
94 (#65,195)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Noah Gordon
University of Southern California (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Analysis of Knowledge.Jonathan Ichikawa & Matthias Steup - 2014 - Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
Useful false beliefs.Peter D. Klein - 2008 - In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: new essays. New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press. pp. 25--63.
Useful False Beliefs.Peter D. Klein - 2008 - In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: new essays. New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press. pp. 25-63.
Defeasibility and Gettierization: A Reminder.Claudio de Almeida & J. R. Fett - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):152-169.
Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem.Rodrigo Borges, Claudio de Almeida & Peter David Klein (eds.) - 2017 - Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

View all 10 references / Add more references