# A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields. the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields. the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the"

## Transcription

1 A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields Problem cases by Edmund Gettier 1 and others 2, intended to undermine the sufficiency of the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the philosophical literature. But I believe they suffer from heretofore unnoticed flaws that undermines their effectiveness. The key to Gettier s examples is the principle that if you are justified in holding some belief, then you are justified in accepting any statements logically implied by that belief. So, if you are justified in believing that the earth is round, then you are justified in believing that either the earth is round or Benjamin Franklin invented television. For if it is true that the earth is round, then it is also true that either the earth is round or Benjamin Franklin invented television. In Gettier s case II, Smith is justified in believing that Jones owns a Ford. So Smith is also justified in believing that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. Yet, as it happens, Jones does not own a Ford and, unbeknownst to Smith, Brown is in Barcelona. Thus, while Smith has the true, justified belief that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona, Smith has made a lucky guess and does not possess knowledge. Or so it may seem. But let us take a closer look at the case. If it is true that Jones owns a Ford, then it is true that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. So far, so good. The sentence Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona is true if and only if the exclusive disjunction of (1), (2), and (3) obtains: (1) It is true that Jones owns a Ford and true that Brown is in Barcelona. (2) It is true that Jones owns a Ford and false that Brown is in Barcelona. (3) It is false that Jones owns a Ford and true that Brown is in Barcelona. It seems obvious that the inference rule Smith follows is:

2 2 (4) P logically entails (P Q) But this inference rule is not consistent with the claim that (P Q) is true if and only if the exclusive disjunction of (1), (2), and (3) obtains. To see this, we substitute (P Q) in (4) with: [(P Q) (P Q) ( P Q)] The first exclusive disjunct is equivalent to (1), the second disjunct is equivalent to (2), and the third is equivalent to (3). The result of this substitution is (5): (5) P logically entails [(P Q) (P Q) ( P Q)] It should be obvious that (5) is not a valid rule of inference, since (5) claims that P logically entails P. Thus, the third disjunct must be discarded and (4) becomes (6): (6) P logically entails P (Q Q) This implies that (3) is not among the truth conditions of Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona given that the latter is inferred from Jones owns a Ford. If Smith uses (4) as his inference rule, then the truth-conditions of his conclusion are given by (6). According to Gettier s principle Smith s belief is justified. But by the terms of the case that belief is false, since its truth conditions require that Jones own a Ford. 3 So Gettier has not presented an instance in which someone has a justified, true belief but not knowledge. There is no problem with disjunction introduction here. We expect that P logically entail (P Q) because P logically entails itself whether or not Q is true. That is, we expect our inference rules to be truth preserving. This is precisely the content of (6). For if P is true, then (P Q) is true because P is true not because P is false and Q is true. Other cases are similarly flawed. In a standard existential generalization case, Smith is justified in believing that Nogot owns a Ford 4. So Smith is also justified in believing that someone in his office owns a Ford. As it happens Nogot does not own a Ford and, unbeknownst

3 3 to Smith, Havit does own a Ford. Thus, while Smith has the true, justified belief that someone in his office owns a Ford, he has made a lucky guess and does not possess knowledge. If it is true that Nogot owns a Ford, then it is true that someone owns a Ford. The sentence Someone in my office owns a Ford is true if and only if the following condition obtains 5 : (7) It is true that Nogot owns a Ford, or true that Havit owns a Ford, or true that Williams owns a Ford,, or true that N owns a Ford. Again, it seems obvious that the inference rule Smith follows is: (8) Fa logically entails x(fx) But this inference rule is not consistent with Someone in my office owns a Ford being true even if Nogot does not own a Ford. As with the previous case, we substitute x(fx) in (8) with the conditions given in (7): Fa Fb Fc Fn The result of this substitution is: (9) Fa logically entails (Fa Fb Fc Fn) Understood as (9), our rule is little more than an expanded version of (4). As with (4), the disjunction in (9) is true if and only if: [(Fa Fa) (Fb Fb) (Fc Fc) (Fn Fn)] Substituting again, our rule becomes: (10) Fa logically entails [(Fa Fa) (Fb Fb) (Fc Fc) (Fn Fn)] Obviously, (10) is not a valid rule of inference, since it claims that Fa logically entails Fa. Thus, the second exclusive disjunct must be discarded and (10) becomes (11): (11) Fa logically entails [Fa (Fb Fb) (Fc Fc) (Fn Fn)]

4 4 This implies that Someone in my office owns a Ford cannot be true if Nogot does not own a Ford, given that it is inferred from Nogot owns a Ford. If Smith uses (8) as his inference rule, then the truth conditions of his conclusion are given by (11). He has a justified belief according to Gettier s principle; but by the terms of the case Smith s belief is false, since its truth conditions require that Nogot own a Ford. This is not an instance in which someone has a justified, true belief but not knowledge. As with the disjunction case, there is no problem with existential generalization here. We expect that Fa logically entail x(fx) because Fa logically entails itself whether or not there are any other substitution instances. Otherwise, our inference rule would not be truth preserving. This is precisely the content of (11). For if Fa is true, then x(fx) is true because Fa is true and not because Fa is false and Fb is true. Gettier s case I suffers from the same flaw. If it is true that Jones is the person who will get the job and true that he has ten coins in his pocket, then it is true that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. The sentence The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket is true if and only if the exclusive disjunction of (12) and (13) obtains: (12) It is true that Jones is the only person who will get the job and true that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. (13) It is true that X, someone other than Jones, is the only person who will get the job and it is true that X has ten coins in his pocket. Smith follows the existential generalization rule here: (14) [Fa {( y)fy y = a} Ga] logically entails x[fx {( y)fy y = x} Gx] But again, this inference rule is not consistent with (13) being among the truth conditions of The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.

5 5 By now our argument is familiar. Let Φ be the formula [Fa {( y)fy y = a} Ga], let Ψ be [Fb ], let Θ be [Fc ], etc., for every object in the domain. When we substitute the description formula in (14) with the disjunction of formulae for all objects in the domain of quantification we have: (15) Φ logically entails (Φ Ψ Θ Ω) 6 The exclusive disjunction in (15) is true if and only if: [(Φ Φ) (Ψ Ψ) (Θ Θ) (Ω Ω)] By substitution we arrive at: (16) Φ logically entails [(Φ Φ) (Ψ Ψ) (Θ Θ) (Ω Ω)] Again, (16) is not a valid rule of inference, since it claims that Φ logically entails Φ. Thus, the second disjunct must be discarded and (15) becomes (17): (17) Φ logically entails [Φ Ψ Θ Ω)] This implies that (13) must also be discarded as among the truth conditions of The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket given that it is inferred from Jones will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket. If Smith uses (14) as his inference rule, then the truth conditions of his conclusion are given by (17). By the terms of the case Smith s belief is false, since his belief is true only if Jones gets the job. So Gettier has not presented an instance in which someone has a justified, true belief but not knowledge. What about cases where Smith s inference does not involve an invalid inference rule, or where Smith doesn t make an inference at all? Surely those cases are still counterexamples to the traditional analysis of knowledge. For instance, Keith Lehrer 7 gives an example wherein Smith sees Mr. Nogot driving a Ferrari and infers Someone owns a Ferrari. Smith makes this

6 6 inference without concluding that Mr. Nogot owns a Ferrari. 8 One may reasonably assume that the lack of false lemmas in this case is evidence that Smith uses a valid inference rule. Lehrer claims that Smith infers by existential generalization that there is someone in his class who owns a Ferrari from information gained about Mr. Nogot without reaching the intermediate conclusion that Mr. Nogot owns a Ferrari; but existential generalization simply doesn t work that way. Smith cannot deduce that someone in his class owns a Ferrari without a specific example of a Ferrari owner. We cannot deduce x(fx) from Ga where F G. We are left to conclude that either Smith cannot be said to have deduced that someone in his class owns a Ferrari from the fact that Mr. Nogot drives a Ferrari (in which case the former belief is unjustified); or Smith must have reached the intermediate conclusion that Mr. Nogot owns a Ferrari (which is false). Either way, this is no counterexample. It may be objected that Lehrer s intent is that Smith s inference is inductive rather than deductive. On that reading, the following inductively supported principle justifies Smith s inference: (18) Typically, anyone who drives a car owns it. This principle only justifies Smith in inferring from the predicate drives a Ferrari to the predicate owns a Ferrari. The inductive premise does not justify the inference from Nogot in Nogot drives a Ferrari to someone in Someone owns a Ferrari. It seems that the latter inference is an existential generalization. Moreover, as a counterexample the case turns on the inference from Nogot to someone, rather than the inference from drives to owns, since the problem is that Nogot does not own a Ferrari but Havit does. So, this looks like an existential generalization case at heart. And my response to it is the same as to the other existential generalization cases.

7 7 Lehrer cites a second argument, one according to which counterexamples can be found of justified true beliefs that are not inferred at all. In this case, a sheep and a dog appear in Smith s visual field; but what he takes to be a sheep is a dog, and the sheep he sees he does not take to be a sheep. 9 We shall interpret I take and I do not take as indicating the existence and lack of the appropriate propositional attitude, respectively. So, what he takes to be a sheep is the belief: (19) THAT is a sheep. Conversely, the sheep that he sees he does not take to be a sheep, indicates the lack of a belief about the other animal in Smith s visual field. Since Smith lacks the appropriate propositional attitude towards the sheep, he does not meet the first of the three conditions of the traditional analysis with respect to the sheep that he sees. Meanwhile, for (19) to be true the object denoted by THAT must be a sheep; but by stipulation it is a dog. Thus, this is not an example of a true, justified belief that is not knowledge. 10 What about other examples where the agent has a true belief that is not inferred, such as Goldman s barn example or Russell s stopped clock example? In Russell s stopped clock case 11 as modified by Scheffler 12, Alice sees a clock that says it is two o clock. She believes it s two o clock, and that is true. However, unknown to Alice, the clock she s looking at stopped twelve hours ago. So, she has an accidentally true, justified belief. Some philosophers do not accept this case as a valid counterexample to the traditional analysis. Robert Shope 13 cites concerns that this is not a case of justified belief: For some philosophers would say that [Alice] violates a relevant procedure of rational inquiry by employing a measuring instrument that is not working, and so does not actually satisfy the intent of the [justification] condition of the standard analysis, This is true even if [Alice] is justified in believing that the clock is working. That justification does not carry over to the belief as to the time simply because the clock is a measuring

8 8 instrument that is not properly set up to take the measurements which [Alice] presumes that it is taking. (20) Shope seems to argue here that two different standards of justification motivate the case. On one hand, Alice is justified in believing that the clock is working. This justification is used to claim that she has a true, justified belief. On the other hand, Alice is not justified in her belief as to the time because she employs a nonfunctional measuring instrument. This lack of justification is used to claim that S s belief is accidentally true. The latter justificatory standard prevails here, since Alice s belief as to the time is at issue, not her belief as to whether or not the clock is working. Thus, the case equivocates on the justification condition, and may be rejected on that ground. I suspect that other cases commit similar equivocations. In Goldman s case, 14 Henry points to a real barn in a district full of papier-mâché facsimiles of barns and says, That s a barn. Here, the information that the district is full of facsimile barns implies a high probability that any randomly picked barn-like object that Henry points to will be a facsimile. Thus, Henry s pointing to an actual barn is accidental. Henry does not have knowledge, in spite of having a true justified belief, because his belief is only accidentally true. 15 Again, two different standards of justification motivate the case. One justificatory standard is used to claim that Henry has a justified, true belief the immediate justification conferred on perceptual beliefs. Another justificatory standard is used to claim that Henry s belief is accidental the low probability of randomly picking the real barn in such a district. Thus, while Henry may be justified in his belief as to what he sees, he is not justified in his belief as to the object he randomly picks out. Again, the latter justificatory standard prevails here, since Henry s belief as to the object he randomly picks is at issue, not his belief as to what he sees. That is, Henry is not justified in believing that the object he points to is a barn even though

9 9 he is justified in believing that he sees a barn. Thus, this case also equivocates on the justification condition, and so may be rejected. 16 We now have non-epistemological approaches to these problem cases. Unfortunately, this implies that there is no epistemological connection between the cases. We can only offer an historical explanation for their existence: Gettier s original cases were widely understood as revealing a problem with justification. Once the philosophical community became generally convinced that there is such a problem, various attempts to bolster or amend justification spread through the literature. But since most philosophers were already convinced that there is a problem with justification, problem cases that equivocate on the justification condition, developed in response to each attempt at explicating justification, were seen as further examples of the problem Gettier discovered. These examples do not undermine the traditional definition of knowledge. While they are supposed to show that there is a problem with justification, we have seen that they reveal no such problem. Contrary to the received view, the three standard conditions are sufficient for someone s knowing a given proposition. This does not negate the work that has been done to explicate justification. But that work need not answer the foregoing problem cases. 1 (1963) Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23, See below. 3 Some may object that I have usurped Gettier s right to stipulate the contents of Smith s belief as the author of this case. I have made no claim about the content of Smith s belief, only its truth conditions. One must separately assume a theory on which a proposition s content are given by its truth conditions in order to claim that the preceding argument dictates the contents of Smith s belief. Gettier does not explicitly make such an assumption, and I have tried to avoid it here. Of course, this argument presents interesting implications for the theory just mentioned, but those implications cannot be explored here. 4 See Myers, R. G., and Stern, K. (1973). Knowledge Without Paradox. Journal of Philosophy 70: See also Feldman, R. (1974). An Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 52: Strictly speaking, this is only true if there are names for every object in the domain. Presumably, everyone in Smith s office has a name. 6 Due to the uniqueness clause in each formula, the disjunction of Φ, Ψ,, Ω will be an exclusive disjunction. 7 Lehrer, K. (1974). Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. 8 (Lehrer 1974, 20).

10 10 9 (Lehrer 1974, 20) 10 A similar argument may be used against Michael Williams candle version of the perceptual belief argument. See Williams, M. (1996). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Russell, Bertrand (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Allen and Unwin. 12 Scheffler, Israel (1965). Conditions of Knowledge. Chicago: Scott, Foresman. 13 The Analysis of Knowing: A Decade of Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Goldman, Alvin (1976). Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 73: Reprinted in Goldman, A. (1992) Liasons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. In the reprinted edition, Goldman adds a footnote (1) wherein he attributes this example to Carl Ginet, but Mr. Ginet seems not to have published it himself. 15 While Goldman uses this example in his (1976) to extend his externalism, here I merely note it as a proposed counterexample to the traditional analysis of knowledge. 16 Strictly speaking, the fact that the case equivocates between the two standards is reason enough to reject it as a counterexample.

### TWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW

DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY

### The distinction between truth-functional and non-truth-functional logical and linguistic

FORMAL CRITERIA OF NON-TRUTH-FUNCTIONALITY Dale Jacquette The Pennsylvania State University 1. Truth-Functional Meaning The distinction between truth-functional and non-truth-functional logical and linguistic

### Russell: On Denoting

Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of

### Zimmerman, Michael J. Subsidiary Obligation, Philosophical Studies, 50 (1986):

SUBSIDIARY OBLIGATION By: MICHAEL J. ZIMMERMAN Zimmerman, Michael J. Subsidiary Obligation, Philosophical Studies, 50 (1986): 65-75. Made available courtesy of Springer Verlag. The original publication

### Gettier: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

Review Preliminaries Case 1 Case 2 General remarks Replies Gettier: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? March 7, 2014 Overview I Review Preliminaries Case 1

### Knowledge is Not the Most General Factive Stative Attitude

Mark Schroeder University of Southern California August 11, 2015 Knowledge is Not the Most General Factive Stative Attitude In Knowledge and Its Limits, Timothy Williamson conjectures that knowledge is

### 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

### A Critique of Gettier s Argument

İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 19, 2008, 115-122 A Critique of Gettier s Argument Habib Türker* Until when Gettier published his article, Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?, knowledge had widely been

Believing Epistemic Contradictions Bob Beddor & Simon Goldstein Bridges 2 2015 Outline 1 The Puzzle 2 Defending Our Principles 3 Troubles for the Classical Semantics 4 Troubles for Non-Classical Semantics

### Goldman on Knowledge as True Belief. Alvin Goldman (2002a, 183) distinguishes the following four putative uses or senses of

Goldman on Knowledge as True Belief Alvin Goldman (2002a, 183) distinguishes the following four putative uses or senses of knowledge : (1) Knowledge = belief (2) Knowledge = institutionalized belief (3)

### Russellianism and Explanation. David Braun. University of Rochester

Forthcoming in Philosophical Perspectives 15 (2001) Russellianism and Explanation David Braun University of Rochester Russellianism is a semantic theory that entails that sentences (1) and (2) express

### In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006

In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

### Reliabilism and the Problem of Defeaters

Reliabilism and the Problem of Defeaters Prof. Dr. Thomas Grundmann Philosophisches Seminar Universität zu Köln Albertus Magnus Platz 50923 Köln E-mail: thomas.grundmann@uni-koeln.de 4.454 words Reliabilism

### Understanding and its Relation to Knowledge Christoph Baumberger, ETH Zurich & University of Zurich

Understanding and its Relation to Knowledge Christoph Baumberger, ETH Zurich & University of Zurich christoph.baumberger@env.ethz.ch Abstract: Is understanding the same as or at least a species of knowledge?

### A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November

Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group

### Warrant and accidentally true belief

Warrant and accidentally true belief ALVIN PLANTINGA My gratitude to Richard Greene and Nancy Balmert for their perceptive discussion of my account of warrant ('Two notions of warrant and Plantinga's solution

### Generic truth and mixed conjunctions: some alternatives

Analysis Advance Access published June 15, 2009 Generic truth and mixed conjunctions: some alternatives AARON J. COTNOIR Christine Tappolet (2000) posed a problem for alethic pluralism: either deny the

### An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood

An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori Ralph Wedgwood When philosophers explain the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori, they usually characterize the a priori negatively, as involving

### Why there is no such thing as a motivating reason

Why there is no such thing as a motivating reason Benjamin Kiesewetter, ENN Meeting in Oslo, 03.11.2016 (ERS) Explanatory reason statement: R is the reason why p. (NRS) Normative reason statement: R is

### Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014

Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional

### Vagueness and supervaluations

Vagueness and supervaluations UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Supervaluations We saw two problems with the three-valued approach: 1. sharp boundaries 2. counterintuitive consequences

### Definite Descriptions and the Argument from Inference

Philosophia (2014) 42:1099 1109 DOI 10.1007/s11406-014-9519-9 Definite Descriptions and the Argument from Inference Wojciech Rostworowski Received: 20 November 2013 / Revised: 29 January 2014 / Accepted:

### Hintikka s Socratic Epistemology Meets Gettier s Counterexamples

Hintikka s Socratic Epistemology Meets Gettier s Counterexamples John Ian K. Boongaling Abstract The overall goal of this paper is to apply Hintikka s Socratic Epistemology to Gettier s counterexamples

### Quantificational logic and empty names

Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On

### Instrumental Normativity: In Defense of the Transmission Principle Benjamin Kiesewetter

Instrumental Normativity: In Defense of the Transmission Principle Benjamin Kiesewetter This is the penultimate draft of an article forthcoming in: Ethics (July 2015) Abstract: If you ought to perform

### A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS 0. Logic, Probability, and Formal Structure Logic is often divided into two distinct areas, inductive logic and deductive logic. Inductive logic is concerned

### McDowell and the New Evil Genius

1 McDowell and the New Evil Genius Ram Neta and Duncan Pritchard 0. Many epistemologists both internalists and externalists regard the New Evil Genius Problem (Lehrer & Cohen 1983) as constituting an important

### Philosophy Epistemology. Topic 3 - Skepticism

Michael Huemer on Skepticism Philosophy 3340 - Epistemology Topic 3 - Skepticism Chapter II. The Lure of Radical Skepticism 1. Mike Huemer defines radical skepticism as follows: Philosophical skeptics

### INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include

### An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics

An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truth-theoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.

### RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE. Richard Feldman University of Rochester

Philosophical Perspectives, 19, Epistemology, 2005 RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE Richard Feldman University of Rochester It is widely thought that people do not in general need evidence about the reliability

### A SOLUTION TO FORRESTER'S PARADOX OF GENTLE MURDER*

162 THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY cial or political order, without this second-order dilemma of who is to do the ordering and how. This is not to claim that A2 is a sufficient condition for solving the world's

### Philosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism. Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument

1. The Scope of Skepticism Philosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument The scope of skeptical challenges can vary in a number

### dialectica dialectica Vol. 65, N 4 (2011), pp DOI: /j x What Should a Theory of Knowledge Do?

561..580 dialectica dialectica Vol. 65, N 4 (2011), pp. 561 579 DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2011.01285.x What Should a Theory of Knowledge Do?dltc_1285 Elijah Chudnoff Abstract The Gettier Problem is the

### Todays programme. Background of the TLP. Some problems in TLP. Frege Russell. Saying and showing. Sense and nonsense Logic The limits of language

Todays programme Background of the TLP Frege Russell Some problems in TLP Saying and showing Sense and nonsense Logic The limits of language 1 TLP, preface How far my efforts agree with those of other

### Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of

Logic: Inductive Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. The quality of an argument depends on at least two factors: the truth of the

### Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language

### The Logic of Ordinary Language

The Logic of Ordinary Language Gilbert Harman Princeton University August 11, 2000 Is there a logic of ordinary language? Not obviously. Formal or mathematical logic is like algebra or calculus, a useful

### SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

Exam Name SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. Draw a Venn diagram for the given sets. In words, explain why you drew one set as a subset of

### what makes reasons sufficient?

Mark Schroeder University of Southern California August 2, 2010 what makes reasons sufficient? This paper addresses the question: what makes reasons sufficient? and offers the answer, being at least as

### Intuition as Philosophical Evidence

Essays in Philosophy Volume 13 Issue 1 Philosophical Methodology Article 17 January 2012 Intuition as Philosophical Evidence Federico Mathías Pailos University of Buenos Aires Follow this and additional

### Robert Audi, The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and. Substance of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. xvi, 286.

Robert Audi, The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and Substance of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xvi, 286. Reviewed by Gilbert Harman Princeton University August 19, 2002

### Conditionals, Predicates and Probability

Conditionals, Predicates and Probability Abstract Ernest Adams has claimed that a probabilistic account of validity gives the best account of our intuitive judgements about the validity of arguments. In

### What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece

What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece Outline of this Talk 1. What is the nature of logic? Some history

### MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

### Philosophy Epistemology Topic 5 The Justification of Induction 1. Hume s Skeptical Challenge to Induction

Philosophy 5340 - Epistemology Topic 5 The Justification of Induction 1. Hume s Skeptical Challenge to Induction In the section entitled Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding

### Dispositionalism and the Modal Operators

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research doi: 10.1111/phpr.12132 2014 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Dispositionalism and the Modal Operators DAVID

### Is Moore s Argument an Example of Transmission-Failure? James Pryor Harvard University Draft 2 8/12/01

Is Moore s Argument an Example of Transmission-Failure? James Pryor Harvard University Draft 2 8/12/01 I Consider the following well-worn example, first put forward by Fred Dretske.

### I assume some of our justification is immediate. (Plausible examples: That is experienced, I am aware of something, 2 > 0, There is light ahead.

The Merits of Incoherence jim.pryor@nyu.edu July 2013 Munich 1. Introducing the Problem Immediate justification: justification to Φ that s not even in part constituted by having justification to Ψ I assume

### Great Philosophers Bertrand Russell Evening lecture series, Department of Philosophy. Dr. Keith Begley 28/11/2017

Great Philosophers Bertrand Russell Evening lecture series, Department of Philosophy. Dr. Keith Begley kbegley@tcd.ie 28/11/2017 Overview Early Life Education Logicism Russell s Paradox Theory of Descriptions

### A Priori Skepticism and the KK Thesis

A Priori Skepticism and the KK Thesis James R. Beebe (University at Buffalo) International Journal for the Study of Skepticism (forthcoming) In Beebe (2011), I argued against the widespread reluctance

### 5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

Deductive arguments are commonly used in various kinds of academic writing. In order to be able to perform a critique of deductive arguments, we will need to understand their basic structure. As will be

### INSTRUMENTAL MYTHOLOGY

BY MARK SCHROEDER JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM I DECEMBER 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT MARK SCHROEDER 2005 By AMONG STANDARD VIEWS about instrumental reasons and rationality, as

### REVIEW OF DUNCAN PRITCHARD S EPISTEMIC LUCK

REVIEW OF DUNCAN PRITCHARD S EPISTEMIC LUCK MARIA LASONEN-AARNIO Merton College Oxford EUJAP VOL. 3 No. 1 2007 Original scientific paper UDk: 001 65 Abstract Duncan Pritchard argues that there are two

### Is Truth the Primary Epistemic Goal? Joseph Barnes

Is Truth the Primary Epistemic Goal? Joseph Barnes I. Motivation: what hangs on this question? II. How Primary? III. Kvanvig's argument that truth isn't the primary epistemic goal IV. David's argument

### WHAT DOES KRIPKE MEAN BY A PRIORI?

Diametros nr 28 (czerwiec 2011): 1-7 WHAT DOES KRIPKE MEAN BY A PRIORI? Pierre Baumann In Naming and Necessity (1980), Kripke stressed the importance of distinguishing three different pairs of notions:

### A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,

### Constructing the World

Constructing the World Lecture 1: A Scrutable World David Chalmers Plan *1. Laplace s demon 2. Primitive concepts and the Aufbau 3. Problems for the Aufbau 4. The scrutability base 5. Applications Laplace

### Basic Concepts and Skills!

Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential

### HOW TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT CAUSING IT* Carolina Sartorio University of Wisconsin-Madison

Philosophical Perspectives, 18, Ethics, 2004 HOW TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT CAUSING IT* Carolina Sartorio University of Wisconsin-Madison 1. Introduction What is the relationship between moral

### Truth and Evidence in Validity Theory

Journal of Educational Measurement Spring 2013, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 110 114 Truth and Evidence in Validity Theory Denny Borsboom University of Amsterdam Keith A. Markus John Jay College of Criminal Justice

### Revisiting the Socrates Example

Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified

Potentialism about set theory Øystein Linnebo University of Oslo SotFoM III, 21 23 September 2015 Øystein Linnebo (University of Oslo) Potentialism about set theory 21 23 September 2015 1 / 23 Open-endedness

### What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames

What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames The Frege-Russell analysis of quantification was a fundamental advance in semantics and philosophical logic. Abstracting away from details

### Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori

Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in

### From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence

Prequel for Section 4.2 of Defending the Correspondence Theory Published by PJP VII, 1 From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence Abstract I introduce new details in an argument for necessarily existing

### Russell on Descriptions

Russell on Descriptions Bertrand Russell s analysis of descriptions is certainly one of the most famous (perhaps the most famous) theories in philosophy not just philosophy of language over the last century.

### The Greatest Mistake: A Case for the Failure of Hegel s Idealism

The Greatest Mistake: A Case for the Failure of Hegel s Idealism What is a great mistake? Nietzsche once said that a great error is worth more than a multitude of trivial truths. A truly great mistake

### HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ

HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ BY JOHN BROOME JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM I DECEMBER 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BROOME 2005 HAVE WE REASON

### In his paper Studies of Logical Confirmation, Carl Hempel discusses

Aporia vol. 19 no. 1 2009 Hempel s Raven Joshua Ernst In his paper Studies of Logical Confirmation, Carl Hempel discusses his criteria for an adequate theory of confirmation. In his discussion, he argues

### Received: 30 August 2007 / Accepted: 16 November 2007 / Published online: 28 December 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

Acta anal. (2007) 22:267 279 DOI 10.1007/s12136-007-0012-y What Is Entitlement? Albert Casullo Received: 30 August 2007 / Accepted: 16 November 2007 / Published online: 28 December 2007 # Springer Science

### The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction...

The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 2 2.0 Defining induction... 2 3.0 Induction versus deduction... 2 4.0 Hume's descriptive

### Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1

Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1 Leibniz was a man of principles. 2 Throughout his writings, one finds repeated assertions that his view is developed according to certain fundamental principles. Attempting

### WHY WE REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE THE ERROR THEORY

WHY WE REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE THE ERROR THEORY Bart Streumer b.streumer@rug.nl 29 June 2017 Forthcoming in Diego Machuca (ed.), Moral Skepticism: New Essays 1. Introduction According to the error theory,

### What God Could Have Made

1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made

### Ayer and Quine on the a priori

Ayer and Quine on the a priori November 23, 2004 1 The problem of a priori knowledge Ayer s book is a defense of a thoroughgoing empiricism, not only about what is required for a belief to be justified

### The Case for Infallibilism

The Case for Infallibilism Julien Dutant* * University of Geneva, Switzerland: julien.dutant@lettres.unige.ch http://julien.dutant.free.fr/ Abstract. Infallibilism is the claim that knowledge requires

### INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE Péter Érdi Henry R. Luce Professor Center for Complex Systems Studies Kalamazoo College, Michigan and Dept. Biophysics KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics of

### DEFEASIBLE A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION: A REPLY TO THUROW

The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 231 April 2008 ISSN 0031 8094 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.512.x DEFEASIBLE A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION: A REPLY TO THUROW BY ALBERT CASULLO Joshua Thurow offers a

### In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following:

Basic Principles of Deductive Logic Part One: In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following: Mental Act Simple Apprehension Judgment

### Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 2012 CONTENTS Part I Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Basic Training 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Logic, Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Deduction and Induction

### Ethical Consistency and the Logic of Ought

Ethical Consistency and the Logic of Ought Mathieu Beirlaen Ghent University In Ethical Consistency, Bernard Williams vindicated the possibility of moral conflicts; he proposed to consistently allow for

### The Paradox of the stone and two concepts of omnipotence

Filo Sofija Nr 30 (2015/3), s. 239-246 ISSN 1642-3267 Jacek Wojtysiak John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin The Paradox of the stone and two concepts of omnipotence Introduction The history of science

### How to Mistake a Trivial Fact About Probability For a. Substantive Fact About Justified Belief

How to Mistake a Trivial Fact About Probability For a Substantive Fact About Justified Belief Jonathan Sutton It is sometimes thought that the lottery paradox and the paradox of the preface demand a uniform

### Philosophy of Mathematics Kant

Philosophy of Mathematics Kant Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk St John s College, Cambridge 20/10/15 Immanuel Kant Born in 1724 in Königsberg, Prussia. Enrolled at the University of Königsberg in 1740 and

### On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University

On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University I. Introduction A. At least some propositions exist contingently (Fine 1977, 1985) B. Given this, motivations for a notion of truth on which propositions

### 10 CERTAINTY G.E. MOORE: SELECTED WRITINGS

10 170 I am at present, as you can all see, in a room and not in the open air; I am standing up, and not either sitting or lying down; I have clothes on, and am not absolutely naked; I am speaking in a

### Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379. ISBN \$35.00.

Appeared in Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (2003), pp. 367-379. Scott Soames. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379.

### Pragmatic Considerations in the Interpretation of Denying the Antecedent

University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 8 Jun 3rd, 9:00 AM - Jun 6th, 5:00 PM Pragmatic Considerations in the Interpretation of Denying the Antecedent Andrei Moldovan

### Epistemic luck and the generality problem

Philos Stud (2008) 139:353 366 DOI 10.1007/s11098-007-9122-z Epistemic luck and the generality problem Kelly Becker Received: 22 May 2006 / Accepted: 14 May 2007 / Published online: 7 June 2007 Ó Springer

### Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic

Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete

### Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE

CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or

### The knowledge argument purports to show that there are non-physical facts facts that cannot be expressed in

The Knowledge Argument Adam Vinueza Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado vinueza@colorado.edu Keywords: acquaintance, fact, physicalism, proposition, qualia. The Knowledge Argument and Its

### Pre cis of Tracking Truth

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXXIX No. 1, July 2009 Ó 2009 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Pre cis of Tracking Truth sherrilyn roush

### Propositions as Cognitive Event Types

Propositions as Cognitive Event Types By Scott Soames USC School of Philosophy Chapter 6 New Thinking about Propositions By Jeff King, Scott Soames, Jeff Speaks Oxford University Press 1 Propositions as

### DOES ETHICS NEED GOD?

DOES ETHICS NEED GOD? Linda Zagzebski ntis essay presents a moral argument for the rationality of theistic belief. If all I have to go on morally are my own moral intuitions and reasoning and those of

### The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic

The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic TANG Mingjun The Institute of Philosophy Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Shanghai, P.R. China Abstract: This paper is a preliminary inquiry into the main