Abstract
AbstractDespite the substantial appeal of the safety condition, Kelp (J Philos Res 34:21–31, 2009; Am Philos Q 53:27–37; Good Thinking. A Knowledge First Virtue Epistemology, Routledge, London, 2018) has raised a difficult challenge for safety-theoretic accounts of knowledge. By combining Gettier-style fake barn cases with epistemic Frankfurt cases, he concludes that no formulation of safety can be strong enough to predict ignorance in the former and weak enough to accommodate knowledge in the latter. In this note, my contribution is two-fold. Firstly, I take up Kelp’s challenge and I show that, once properly understood, safety successfully rises to it. Secondly, I draw a more general lesson on the safety condition: a satisfactory solution to Kelp’s challenge calls for a revision of the standard formulation of safety, which must be indexed to both methods and environments. My conclusion will be that an environment-relative version of safety not only meets Kelp’s challenge, but it also advances our understanding of the safety condition on knowledge.
Funder
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference53 articles.
1. Baumann, P. (2008). Is knowledge safe? American Philosophical Quarterly, 45(1), 19–30.
2. Beddor, B., & Pavese, C. (2020). Modal virtue epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 101(1), 61–79.
3. Bernecker, S. (2020). Against global method safety. Synthese, 197(12), 5101–5116.
4. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2020). Non-reductive safety. Belgrade Philosophical Annual, 33, 25–38.
5. Bogardus, T. (2014). Knowledge under threat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(2), 289–313.
Cited by
4 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