Abstract
AbstractThis paper offers a novel account of practical factor effects on knowledge attributions that is consistent with the denial of contextualism, relativism and pragmatic encroachemt. The account goes as follows. Knowledge depends on factors like safety, reliability or probability. In many cases, it is uncertain just how safe, how reliably formed or how probable the target proposition is. This means that we have to estimate these quantities in order to form knowledge judgements. Such estimates of uncertain quantities are independently known to be affected by pragmatic factors. When overestimation is costlier than underestimation, for instance, we tend to underestimate the relevant quantity to avoid greater losses. On the suggested account, high stakes and other pragmatic factors induce such “asymmetric loss functions” on quantities like safety, reliability and probability. This skews our estimates of these quantities and thereby our judgements about knowledge. The resulting theory is an error-theory, but one that rationlizes the error in question.
Funder
deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Philosophy,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference51 articles.
1. Brown, Jessica. 2006. Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres. Philosophical Studies 130 (3): 407–435.
2. Brown, Jessica. 2018. Fallibilism: Evidence and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Buckwalter, Wesley. 2010. Knowledge isn’t closed on Saturday. A study in ordinary language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3): 395–406.
4. Brown, Jessica. 2014. The mystery of stakes and error in ascriber intuitions. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology, ed. J.R. Beebe, 145–173. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
5. Buckwalter, Wesley, and Jonathan Schaffer. 2015. Knowledge, stakes, and mistakes. Noûs 49 (2): 201–234.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献