Prr Rc Kwd d Juc
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
PYRRHON REFLECTONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND JSTFCATON obert . ogei
N Yr xrd FRD UNER RE
Oo niversity ess Oxford Oxford New York Torono Delhi Bombay Calcuta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Naiobi Dar es Saaam Cape Town Melboue Auckland Madrid and associaed companies in Ber !adan
Copyigh © 1 994 by Robet Robet J Fogein Fogein Published by Oford Universiy Press, Inc. Madison Avenue New York New York York 0016 Oford is a regisered rademark of Oford Universi Press All ghs reseved. No par of this publicaion may be repoduced sored a rerieval system or ansmied, in any fom or by any means eecronic mechanical, phoocopying recording or ohewise, without the prior permission of Oford Universi Press. Librar of Coness Cataoging-in-Publicaion Daa Fogelin Rober J Pyrhonian reflecions on knowledge and jusicaion p cm. Icudes biblioaphical references and inde ISBN 0-19-508987- 1 ustificaion Theoy of knowedge) 2 Skepicism BD22.F64 994 dc20 9340068
2 6 8 9 73 Prnd in the United States o Ameica on acdfre paper
For Florence
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
Preface
So o th thoghts ths ork hav b th a log t orrrs o y rst as abot kolg aar rst Edence and Meanng 1 96 7) a ch that I sa thr stll strks as broaly corrct What that arlr tratt lack as a arcato o th colxty a th o th robls t as t to solv. At that t I as ch r th lc o th rtgs o . Ast a I thoght hlosohcal robls col b rsolv rasoably short orr throgh ayg carl attto to ho ors ar actally s I stll thk valabl sghts ca b ga ths ay a hav o sr to jo thos ho o look back at Asts ork th sothg clos to cott I ov aay ro Asts vsor hat I took to b Asts vsor a br o rasos al Grcs Casal hory o rcto" co vc that Asts tratt a hc y tratt o th robl o rcto r holly aqat Styg th orks o act a o sktcs covc that sktcal chal lgs ar sros challgs I ca to s that ths challgs col ot b rtt o th th glb sggsto coo th 190s a 1960s that thy rslt ro th sktcs osg arb trary a ossbly hgh staars or hat ca ko y vs o ths attrs r gv a cosrabl boost by harg th rag hoso Clarks Lgacy o Sktcs." Irs g ysl th orks o Wttgst cr o ay lgrg a that hlosohcal robls at o asy soltos. hloso hyclg hlosohy t to abolsh hlosohys har ork. I caot thak all ho hav a ortat cotrbtos to ths ork or thy cl thos ho hav b gros co tg o y rvos rtgs. Ill lt ysl to thos stt tos a rsos ho cotrbt rctly to ths rojct
Preace
Institutions fist hough it ay not b obvious fo its con tnts this o as ittn at a sis of lasantan alost invaiably sunnylacs It as bgun in Stanfo Califonia at th Cnt fo Avanc Stuis in th Bhavioal Scincs h I civ atial suot fo th ational Enont fo th Huanitis ost of at I of this o as ittn in ths ial suounings o yas lat I as a visiting ofsso at th Uni vsity of Califoia at Bly h I off a sina to a gou of vy intllignt gauat stunts his nabl to tst y ias bfo thy ha han into unshaabl coitnts I ha ho to bing th ojct to coltion uing a fiv stay at th Rocfll Cnt in th illa Sblloni in Bllagio Italy but insta I convinc yslf that th o n to aitional chats. h ojct as ssntially finish in th sing of 2 hil I as on sabbatical living in a uscan fahous south of Sina Of cous non of this oul hav bn ossibl ithout th ai of Datouth Collg an its Datnt of hilosohy Both hav bn unstaning an flxibl in alloing to ta avantag of th ootunitis just not h collg has also suot y sach though sabbaticals sulntay gants gnal sach funs an funs associat ith th Shan aichil ofsso shi in th Huanitis hich I hol Fo o than a ca Dat outh Collg has ovi an ial stting fo th ual occuation of tach an schola. A gat any iniviuals hav a hlful citiciss of this o I snt ats of it at a nub of institutions an ofit fo th vigoous Socatic qustioning ovi by such occasions hs institutions inclu Stanfo Univsity Boolyn Collg th Univsity of Califonia at Bly Datouth Collg Ein bugh Univsity Glasgo Univsity St Ans Univsity an Stling Univsity I also ofit fo th ootunity to iscuss Donal Davisons vis ith hi at th illa Sblloni y chif bt hov is to y collagus in th hilosohy atnt at Datouth Without thi ngtic citiciss this o oul hav bn finish soon ith a nub of flas still in lac Scifically Bna Gt ohn Konl as oo as ag an Walt SinnottAstong aticiat in a stuy gou that subjct t anuscit t igh scutiny ish to than Angla Blacbun ho as hilosohy to shh this ojct though th Oxfo Univsity ss an
Preace
aso h aoyos rvr ho sor s bcao h akg ora sggsos or s rov. I aso sh o hak a ayor or hr h coyg h x ay, I s hak y , orc og, or hr c a sor, hr shar y or ora rov a, o sgcay, hr coa o Iaahogh sho b sa ha, cosao, sh xrcs hs vrs s sr rogs
Hanover New Hampshire Sepember 993
R .
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
Contents
Itoctio: hiosohical Skticis a yhois,
Part Gttir and th Prblm f Knwldg Chat 1 Gtti obs, 1 Geier's Formulaion 5
Geiers Reasons or Acceping His Firs Poin 6 Geiers ndersanding o Jusiicaion 7 A Second nerpreaion o Jusiicaion 8 The Geier Problems and Nonmonooniciy 2 Variaions on he Geier Problems 23 Episemic R esponsibiliy 26 Conclusion 28 Chat 2. othCas hois, 1 Analyses o nowledge 3 ndeeasibiliy Theories 33 Chat 3 Extais, 4 1
The Aracion o Eealism 42 BonJour agains he Reliabiliss 43 Eealis Grounds 46 Goldman and Causal Theories o nowing 4 The Move o he Subjuncive 54 Chat 4 Sbjctivis a Sbjctivitis, 61 Conclusive Reasons 6 Subjuncivism 66 Subjunciviis 7
Subjuncive Condiionals and Possible orlds 72 Noick agains he Skepics 7 5 The ailure o Episemic Closure 7
Cotets
Nozick against the Skeptics, 8 Dretske against pistemic Closure, 82 Chat . Estc Gac, 88
Justificatory Procedures, 89 Doubts, 9 Levels of Scrutiny, 93 s There a Fact of the Matter in nowing�, 95 ts Hard to Say, 98 Summary of Part , 99 Ax A h Ltty aax a th fac aax, 12 The Lottery Parado, 2 The Preface Parado, 5 The Conunction Principle for nowledge, 8
art Arppa and th rbm f Justfcatn Chat 6 Aga a th b f Estc ustfcat, 1 1 The Problem, 4 Success Conditions on Theories of Justication, 7 Theories of pistemic Justification, 9 Chat 7 uatas, 2
Forms of Foundationalism, 23 Chisholms Version of Foundationalism, 24 Levels of Justication, 25 Certainty and the SelfPresenting, 29 Presumptions, 32 The Transfer of Justification, 34 Material pistemic Principles, 35 Summary and valuation, 38 Chat 8 . Ita Chts, 1 46
BonJours Version of Coherentism, 4 Standards of Coherence, 48 mmediate Problems, 49 The Doastic Presumption, 52 Standard Obections to Coherentism, 54 Coherence and Observation 55 The MultipleChoice Problem, 58 Justification and Truth, 59
Cotets
An Assessmen, 62 ehrer and the solaion Objecion, 62 Chatr 9 . Exta Cohrtsm 1 70
aidsons ersion o Coherenism, 7 The Naure o Coherence, 72 Truh, 73 The Skepical Challenge, 74 Sensaion and Belie, 7 Meaning and usiicaion, 76 The Fundamenal Argumen, 7 6 The Golden Triangle, 82 aidson's Eealis Semanics, 83 The Problem o Error, 84 The Caresian Skepic's Reply, 86 The Pyrrhonian Skepic's Reply, 88 Chatr 10 yrrhosm 192 NeoPyrrhonism, 92
Again, s There a Fac o he Maer in nong�, 93 The Pyrrhonis's se o Episemic Terms, 9 s Skepicism Saable�, 96 A Temporary Sopping Poin, 22 Ax B o Wttgsts 20 Tuing Things Around, 26 Holsm, 28 Publiciy, 2 Acion, 2 Rrcs 223 Ix 23 1
x
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
rr Rc Kwd d Juc
e have ist aised a dust, and then complain, we cannot see G
Introduction: Philosophical Skepticism and Pyrrhonism
Wh sakg o a hlosohcal sktc ght hav soo ho oubts thgsor calls thgs to qustoo hlosohcal grous grous.. ths ay o sakg sakg hlosohcal skt cs s hlosohcal bcaus hlosohy s th sourc o th skt cs. W col also sak about soo bg a hlosohcal sktc orr to cat that h or sh s sktcal abou hlos ohy jst as say that soo s a rlgos sktc orr to cat that h or sh s sktcal s ktcal about rlgo rlgo.. ths sco sc o ay o sa s ak kg g hlosohcal sktcs sktcs s hlosohcal bcaus h losohy s ts targt o avo couso ll rsrv th labl hlosohcal sktcs" or th rst sort o sktcs aly sktcs that arss ro hlosohcal rasog. h sco sort o sktcshr hlosohy s th targt o th sktcs ll rr rr to as a s sktcs abou hlosohy. s t ossbl to cob hlosohcal sktcs th skt cs about abou t hlosohy hlosohy that th at s to hav obts about hlosohy hlosohy o hlosohcal al argu arguts ts hr s o cours cours sothg sothg th bass o hlosohc s lrr lrrta tally lly cular cular abot such a osto os to sc th sktcs skt cs about hlosohy oul s to urct th hlosohcal arg ts us to attack t Whthr or ot ths s a tab osto t s carly th osto aot by th yrrhoa sktcsat last ts lat or as rrst th rtgs o Sxtus Ercus.! yrrhoa yrrhoa sktcs ts lat or uss us s sl s lr rut utg g hlosoh hlosoh cal arguts takg hlosohy as ts targt hat ollos h sak o yrrhoa sktcs ll hav ths osto . So o th araoxcal charactr o usg us g slru slrutg tg arg argu uts ts ay b rov h rcall that th yrrhost sought sus so o bl to urthr a ractcal goal Wh o attas ssso
4
Pyhonan Reectons
of belef, oe s suppose to f oeself a state of ataaxa uetue), etue ), whh, whh, fo the the Pyhos Pyhost, t, s a fom of blesseess Thus, the Pyhost phlosophzes oly as a tempoay expeet, a, oe the axetes poue by ogmat phlosophzg hae bee sumoute, moute , the Pyhost Pyhosts s ow skeptal skept al agumets agumets may be sae sae as a lae o loge loge of of use (Seus Empiricus Agains he ogicians, 2 48 4 8 ) But the the Pyhoa Pyhoa agumets agumets ae ot smply spesable, spesabl e, fo, as spemes of phlosophzg, they too sta ee of elmato Ths s bought out a mage moe apposte appos te tha that of the lae Fo in eg to the Skeptic expessions we st gsp ist the ct tht we ke no positive ssetion especting thei bsote tth, since we sy tht they y possiby be conte by the seves seeing tht they theseves e ince in the things to which thei obt ppies jst s peient gs o not eey eiinte the hos o the boy bt so expe theseves ong with the hos PH 1 206-7 206-7
I wll take ths aeptae of selfefutato petope) as a efg haate of Pyhoa Pyhoa skeptsm sk eptsm as I uesta t I thk th k the hstoal hstoal moemet moeme t kow as Pyho Pyhosm sm as a s epe epe sete the woks of extus mpus s a example of Pyhoa skeptsm as I hae explae t. ome woul sagee I ot thk thee wll be seous seou s objetos to the lam that Pyhosm Pyhosm took phlosophy as oe of ts hef tagets t was etaly a skeptsm about phlosophy. No No o I thk thee s ay uesto that the late Pyhosts embae selfefutato the sese whh I esbe t. The texts o both these mattes seem lea A futhe uesto s whethe the Pyhosts lmte the skeptal attaks to phlosophy. The aswe to that s lealy o, fo Agains he Proessors extus aopts a skeptal stae towa the lams mae by pofessos of gamma, heto, geomety, athmet, astology, a mus Although eah of these fels a hae phlosophal ele ele mets, extus expltly ot teat them as aeas of phlosophal estgato. All the same, as he tells us, the Pyhosts ame to suspe belef these aeas as well e explas the easos fo og so ths way n espect o the Ats n Sciences, they [the yhonists yhonists hve et with the se expeience s they i in espect o phiosophy s whoe Fo st s they ppoche phiosophy with the esie o ttining tth, bt when ce by the eqipoent conict n is co o things things sspene gen gent,so t,so so in the cse o o the Ats Ats n Sciences, Sciences, when th h set bot steng the with view
Introducton Phosophca keptcsm and Pyhonsm
5
t learig here as the truth they ud diiculties less seri us which they did t ccea (Aanst (Aa nst th e Pro Proessors
Tha s fg o more agreeme amog he rofessors of he ars a sees ha hey fo amog he hlosohers he Pyrrhoss aga were le o a sseso of belef. s o o lear howeer wheher he eahgs all all he brahes of he ars a sees are f arges arges for sseso of belef. Perhaps mee rse ogmaally proes lams worhy of or asse. asse. fa Ses hmself somemes seaks wh o aare reserao abo hgs he says hae bee esablshe a ar lar see as for eamle he followg remark For he boy s a k of o f epresso epresso of he sol as fa s roe by he see se e of Physogomy" Physogomy" (PH 1 ). s o omleely lear he whh of he ars a sees are sbje o he Pyrrho Pyrrhos s alls for sseso of o f belef a whh are o b a leas s lear ha hese alls for he sseso of belef eomass more ha hlosohy arrowly oee a erhas less ha he ars a sees broaly oee. A more ffl qeso a here ommeaors are sharly e s wheher Pyrrhoss alle for or aeme o e a sspeso of belef wh respe o he ommo belefs of eeryay lfe The elefs of a Pyrrhos " oaha ares rases hs qeso by sgshg wo sors of Pyrrhosm ha mgh be fo he Ou lnes lnes o Pyrr yrrhonsm ho nsm The irst type shal call llwig Gae rustc Pyrrhonsm. The ustic Pyrrhist has belies whatsever he directs epoche twards every issue that may arise The secd type Scepticism shall call urbane Pyrrhons The urbae Pyrrhist is happy t beieve mst the thigs that rdiar peple asset t i the rdi ay curse evets: he directs epoche twards a speciic target rghly speakig twards philsphical ad scietiic matters 2-3
Whh sor of Pyrrhosm s fo Sess Oulnes o Pyrrhonsm! ares hmself oles ha he geeral eor of PH s hk bably rs PH also oas mora rsos of rbay" ). Mles yea has also plme for he rs erreao. erreao . Mhael Free has efee he rbae erre erre aohogh he oes o se hs (somewha eeos) labe. ares ells s ha efeers of he rus erreao are lkely o efe for wo hef reasos First may the argmets H appear t demlish a beies a gve tpc i they demlish ay belies the attack casati casat i
6
yhoa Refectos r time r truth ay d t appear t retrict their target t cietific r philphical piti i the area; ad the Fve Trpe f Agrippa i term f whch much f the argumetati f H i cducted eem whlly idifferet t ay diticti betwee cietfic ther ad everyday pii Secdly H make mak e it plai that the ppet ppet f Pyrrhim Pyrrhim regularly regularly ctrued Pyrrhim i rutic fahithe triu argumet that Sceptic cat act evdetly preuppe that t hat Pyrrhi Pyrrhit t have belief at all (3
aess aes s sseo eo agume agume aes lle foe, ge ge he h e ommo ae amog oagoss of abug uaeable ews o he ooes oe o efue hem Thus fo hs a of a ess agume o hae foe, a e mus be fou ha saes ha he skeal oes ha wee ee o ue a suseso of belef wh ese o hlosohal a sef belefs wee also ee o be use, wh he same effe wh ese o oay belefs aes, howee, aly ams ha o suh e aeas he Outlines o Pyonism f we ae oee o soe he soe of epce PH, s esely suh humum seees [hose eessg oay belefs] whh wll mos eese us; ye of hem Seus says says oh ohg" g" 0 So a a agume agume ee o show ha h a h e Pyhoss alle fo a suseso of eeyay (humum) belefs mus be e, a, fa, aes ess hs ase maly o hs fs o oe aboe, amely, ha may of he agumes PH aea o emolsh all belefs o a ge o f hey emolsh ay belefs." Tha s, as s keal agumes agumes seem o aly equally equally o ommo saed, hese skeal b elefs a hlosohal o sef beefs; f oe goes, so mus he ohe aes uses u ses he Pyhoa Pyhoa agume fom he eo eo o make hs o A Pyrr Pyrrhi hitt will wil l ly ly believe that the water wa ter i tepd t epd if he udge udge it t be ; ad he ca ly ly udge it t be if he pee p ee a criteri criteri f truth by which t udge it But the thei that there i a criteri f truth i itelf a domaideed it i a perfect pecime f the philphiccietific teet which the Greek caled domata Nw the Pyrrhit f H reect al domata Hece he wil w il t t haver rather wil t believe that he haa criteri f truth Hece he wil t be abe t udge r t believe that the water i tepid I geeral geeral the Pyrrht Pyrrht f H will have rdiary rdiary belief beli ef at all Ordiar belief are t doma domata ta Nethele reectig
ntoducton hoophca Skeptcm and yhonsm
7
dogmata the Pyhist must eect diay belies the ps sessi diay belies pesppses the pssessi at least e dogma dogma that thee is a citei tuth
hnk h gmen no only wong, deely wong, nd wong n wy h doe no on le nnce o he echncl menng of cen Geek em. The ge mly meeen he dleccl chce of he yhonn ck on he dogm. The yhon doe not hold he ew h jdgmen my no e mde n he ence of ceon of h. Th ew held y he dogm, fo exmle, he Soc eemolog who emed o fomle ch ceon of h. f he gmen fom he ceon coec, wll he coneqence h he dogmatist ogh o end jdgmen on he dogmc hloohcl elef, nd lo on he odny elef, fo, Be ghly noe, he gmen le eqlly o oh B h lee he yhon noched, fo no of h oon o oe h jdgmen y only e mde on he of ceon of h. o o ee h no o ee wh yhonn kecm (whehe gh o wongee o nee) ll o n The Skec Belef" Mchel Fede h mde h on wh ge foce Sice the skeptic wats t see whethe his ppet at least b y his w stadads cas has kwledge he i his w agumets adhees t these stadads But this des t mea that he himsel is cmmitted t them He is awae the act eg that diaily we d t peate by these [the dgmatic stadads ad that it is because his ppets wat me tha we diaily have that they ty t subect themselves t these sticte cas they wat eal kwledge cetai kwledge
hnk Fede excly gh, nd h led hm o mke deee on. n he wng, yclly he conclon of kecl gmen, he yhon ofen e h one ogh o end jdgmen o whhold en. Hee, n cllng fo enon of jdgmen, he yhon eem o e ekng n h own oce, nd nce he gond he e he fo h cll fo he enon of jdgmen n he cl ce eqlly ly o ll jdgmen, he yhon eo ipso commed o he enon of ll jdgmen whoee n eone, Fede on o h hee cl fo he enon of jdgmen e hemele mde fom whn he dogm fmewok, whch he yhon occe only emoly fo dleccl oe
8
Pyhonan Rctons hir ai [i callig fr h suspsi f udg igh us b pi u h pp ha b his w sadards i wuld s ha h ugh wihhld ass Bu sic h skpic has cid hislf hs sadards hr is als ras hik us h basis f hs rarks ha h is cid h clai ha ugh wihhld ass a paricular subc l al h graliai ha ugh alwas wihhld ass
We hus ge he esul h he genelzon of he yhonss gumen shows h he dogmss ough o whhold ssen on ll suecs ncludng hose concenng he ffs of eeydy lfe On he ohe hnd, he gumen hs no mlcons fo wh he yhons ough o ough no o elee, exce fo he sujunce clm h he yhons ough o elee nohng wee he dogmswhch, of couse, he s no If hee e no exs, s Bes concedes, h decly se h he yhons ough o susend udgmen concenng he ffs of dly lfe, nd f, s Fede hs shown, hee e no gounds fo dw ng hs concluson fom wh sd n he ex, hee cenly e, on he ohe sde, nume of exs h seem o se unequoclly h he yhons ws ot cllng fo he susenson of ll elefs ncludng elefs of eeydy lfe Thus, commenng exlcly on he nge of lcon of he yhonn exessons, Sexus emks We mus ememe h we do no emloy hem un eslly ou ll hngs, u ou hose whch e noneden nd e ojecs of dogmc nquy" ( 208 ). Then, moe osely he ells us Adhrig h apparacs w liv i accrdac wih h r al ruls f lif udgaicall sig ha w ca rai whll iaciv Ad i wuld s ha his rgulai f lif is furfld ad ha par f i lis i h guidac f Naur ahr i h csrai f h passis ahr i h radii f laws ad cuss ahr i h isruci f h ars PH
I mgh e ossle o go lle wyBnes ges yn exlnng how eson could usue lfe of hs knd sns elef. Fo exmle, wh Sexus desces s he gudnce of ue mgh, n some cses les, e eed s n uomc o nsnce esonse The hsy mn, whou hough o elef, smly guls down we much n he mnne h knee eks when suck wh hmme. Bu, s Bnes hmself sees, hs uomcesonse ccoun of h yhons's wys of cng ecomes less nd less lu
ntoducton Phoophca Skeptcm and Pyhonm
9
le we moe down he l fom he gdnce of e o he don of lw nd com nd fnlly o he ncon of he . In fc, ledy mlle when led o on nd dee. Who oeng comlex e of elef, eon cold no hnke fe e on he ew Yok Sock xchnge o wn o ee Lh efoe he de Fced wh he oec of ng o he yhon n mlle ew conceng hmn hogh nd con whle oeng no dec exl edence o o h on, Be cknowledge h PH . . . conn mon non of ny" ( 8 ) . Sll, he conne o mnn h he genel eno of PH . . . ndly c" (8). Whee do we nd? Thee e no ex n he Outlies f Pyrrhism h exlcly e commmn o wh Be cll c yhonm. Thee e, howee, ex h n ded gn h commmen. Wh h, he ene wegh of he gmen hf o wh we mgh cll he genelzon gmen Sex commed o c yhonm ece he commed o hng whoe nl genelzon mon o c yhonm. Th gmen, eem o me, Fede h hown o e mken. The con clon, hen, h he yhonm of Sex w ne. In ny ce, when I ek of yhonm I wll ndend n h wy lhogh I wll hencefowd do he wod ne." Wh he o o f Fede gmen, I hnk m y ndendng of le yhonm hoclly ond. Tnng now o n enely dffeen me, I wh o k wh yhonm wold look lke f wee ded o h wold he dec lcon o conemo y hloohcl dee. In cl, nce conemoy hlo ohy h een deely conceed wh lngge, wh wold yhonn hloohy look lke when gen lngc ? My ggeon h he donl yhon dd no cll fo he enon of common (nondogmc elef, o ded yhon wold he no comln gn common mode of expressig hee elef. Fhemoe j he don yhon ook h ge dogmc elef h ncend com mon elef, o ded yhon wold ke lke de owd fom of exeon h em o ncend (fo hloohcl oe common mode of exeon. In m, o ded yhon m wold he ong fmly eemlnce o he oon deel oed y Wgenen n h le wng. I he ged elewhee h yhonn kecm he ho cl moemen h Wgenen le hloohy mo eemle,
10
Pyhonan Reecton
nd Ill eu o omon eween yhonm nd Wgen en le hloohy nume of me n h udy. The on I wh o mke hee h he yhon I undend hem e no deed fom ung uh wod know" en" el" nd ue." A ommon em ued n ommon wy hey e no moe oj eonle hn ohe em of ommon ue Thu ekng he ommon wy he yhon n l heelf of he ndd on wh known he hn wh eleed wh en he hn wh ey lkely wh el he hn wh ounefe nd wh ue he hn wh fle Ou yhon (o neoyhon) dle only when hee em e eed no he ee of dogm o do he ddng fo hey e hen oneed no wh Wgenen ll ueone Ubbgffn) We are der he illsi ha wha is pecliar prd esseial i r ivesigai resides i is ig grasp he icmparable essece lagage ha is he rder exisig bewee he c ceps prpsii wrd pr rh experiece ad s he rder is a upeode bewees speak ue cncept Whereas crse i he wrds lagage experiece wrld have a se i ms b e as hmble a e as ha he wrds able lamp dr Phoophca netgaton
Ou neoyhon wll no of oue defend ommon lnguge he leged hloohl lnguge ne hey e no neeed n ung fowd hloohl lm n llel fhon he donl yhon hough defende of ommon elef gn he m of dogm hloohy wee no oonen of hlo ohy of ommon ene. one of hee emk offeed defene of yhonm o neoyhonm. Though mundendng ou yhonm n e ouneed eem o me h yhonm dm of no de jufon yhonm eem o he h eul feue f ue n no e wnedly eed o e ue Ill eu o h on Thee oenng emk hen e nended only o dee he ewon fom whh h wok wen. They e nended o nde wh I he n mnd y llng hee efleon yhonn efleon Th wok fll no wo The f enled Gee nd he olem of Knowledge." I n em o eue ou odny on e of knowledge fom hoe hloohe who he gned uden nno e nd n he oe he mde eem deely olem Che nd een my own eone o Gee
Intoducton: Phosophca Skeptcsm nd yhonsm
11
olem ce 2 og 4 een ccl ey of e mn oon el y oe. ole o go ecly fom ce 1 o ce , log ong o wll lee nexlne wy e ejece nme of eemngly lle lee o my oon. Te econ of y clle g n e olem of fcon. ccong o on, g w leng fge n e yonn el ook lce eween 100 B n D 1 00. H cl conon w o yemze yonn gmen n w cme o e known e Fe Moe Leng o e Senon of Belef. Tee moe wee nene o een comleely genel ocee fo efng ny clm ogm mg mke. ogly, ee moe wee nene o ow e ogm, wen foce o efen e eon, m nely fll no ccl eonng, n nfne ege, o elnce on n noe mon. en og gone lgely nnoce, ee n ncnny eemlnce eween olem oe y g Fe Moe n oe conemoy eemolog e ne e eng of e heory of jusifiaion Te mly o cloe I wll efne e loocl olem of jfcon e em o ke eoly n en o e coneqence of g Fe Moe. Te yonn conclon of wok ecen loocl wng on jfcon e me no gnfcn oge n cyng o ogm. Tng e now lgely Sex mc lef em lmo wo on ye go. Snce wok e ongly kecl conclon, e e o e clo n gng e oon ne coneon f n fll exlcon. Fo oe ley fml w e wok cone o fo oe wo e lle ymy w e non ey eeen (o o), cloe ckng f e ex my omeme eem olx o eo. T feelng my e enfoce y my ml of mny of ee oon on e mle gon . If e oon e o ooly neqe, wy e e ee y lyng em o n el? Te nwe no lwy oo f oon ooly neqe Ofen ecome een only fe ll e eoce of e oon e een lye n e neqce me mnfe n ny ce, ee ong emon gn e clm looe of cknowlege len e mly me e o n olng olem of knowlege ey emele e e. Te only wy o efe emon o ow n el ee eoe ex j e efec I e o em.
12
Pyhonan Reecton
Snce hs wok eles n mny wys on Wgensen's le wngsn n cl on my eng of hem s esenng neoyhonn snonI he ncle n enx exmnng oh he neoyhonn n nonyhonn hemes n hese wngs. The sengh of he gmens n he ody of he ex does no of cose een on he coecness of my edng of Wgensen. They ms sn on he own whehe hey coecly eesen Wgensen's ews o no. As I e Wgensen's le wngs clly On Cany seems eden h hee e non yhonn sns n hs le wngs h sgges elcemen of fononls heoy of jsfcon wh n lene holsc heoy of jsfcon. I m lso we h hs sec of Wgensen's le wngs mkes hem ce o mny of hs dmes ecsely ecse seems o sly tatn of skecsm Gen my consn efeence o Wgensen s neoyhonn seemed mon o e cle o he elonsh eween he skecl n nskecl hemes n hs le wngs. Snce he dscsson s mly me of neeon d no s well n he oy of he ex . I heefoe hogh ee o esen s n enx
No References t Sextus piricus are t Setu Empcu wth an Engh Tanaton Sextus piricus 96 7 PH is an abbreviatin f the Gree title f the utne o Pyhonm ie Py Hypotypo 2 Fr an excellent discussin f these atters see David Sedly "The tivatins f Gree Septicis 983. 3 See fr exaple the discussin f the ethdic Schl f edicine at PH 236ff 4 Barnes 982 Buyeat 980 Burnyeat 984 6. Frede 984 Frede 98 7. Frede 987 8 . Frede's ight just be shuld be read as a cautius yrrhnian is Fr the surrunding cntext it is clear that he endrses the interpretatin he is abut t give 9 The exaple is fr Barnes 982 27 n 90 0 Fgelin 98 Fgelin 987b This was pinted u t by the annyus reader fr the Oxfrd ni versity ress.
I GETTlER AND THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
1 Gettier roblems
In h che I wl ke feh look fmly of eemologcl olem known Gee olem h wee geneed y dmnd Gee mon cle I fed Te Belef Knowl edge ? " I wll ge h he oce of he Gee olem h een mndeood nd ece of h eone o hem he een e o of foc nd wo ede he on I wll lo ge h once he oce coecly denfed he Gee olem cn e oled n ghfowd wy Wh h olon n hnd wll hen e ole o ndend why eemology h ken he fom h nd why olem he eed nd wll n ll lkelhood conne o e olon
Gi Fomulaion Gee ce e nended o ode coneexmle o cond onl of he followng knd know h P ff
) P e elee h P nd jfed n eleng h P
Fo ey efeence wll cll h he docne h knowledge eql jfed e elef. Befoe eenng wo ce nended o how h jfed e elef no ffcen condon fo knowledge Gee noe wo on F n he ene of jfed" n whch eng jfed n eleng h P necey condon of knowng h P
15
16
Pyrhonan Reectons
ole fo eon o e ufed n eleng ooon h n f fle Seond fo ny ooon P f utfed n eleng h P nd P enl nd dedue fom P nd e he eul of h deduon hen ufed n eleng h Mny who he eonded o Gee hllenge he geed h eond on fo k. I wll no do h egy u ned onene on h f on
Gi' Raon fo Accping Hi Fi Poin Why doe Gee hnk eon n e ufed n eleng omehng h fle ? Gee offe no exl eon fo eng h lm u gen he e of duon he me he woe h ey he eumly hd omehng of he followng o n mnd Suoe we wee o n h n ode fo o e ufed n eleng h P ue edene fo P mu enl he h of P h een ommonly held h he mmede uho of h ulng would e h no elef ould e ufed on ndue gound nd mo of wh we ll eml knowledge would heey e led ou fom he In odek Chholm wod uh moe would he he onequene h know ey lle ou he wold ound hm" Thee efleon do no howee elh Gee f on fo he followng hee e no equlen AnDedum A eon n e ufed n eleng ome hng whou oeng gound h enl . Gee F on A eon n e ufed n eleng omehng h fle. Fo ll h we he een o f he ooon ufed n eleng h P my elf enl P een hough gound fo eleng P do no en P oe h uh elonh hold fo ooon of he followng knd oely elee h P If oely elee h P hen P e egdle of whehe gound fo eleng h P enl P Le we wll ee h he me
17
Geer Probems
mlcon hold fo clm of he fom is jusified in believing ha P wll ke ome eoy wok o ge hee
Gi Undanding of Juificaion Snce he noon of jfcon ly cenl ole n Gee g men, wll e mon o decde how he ndend B Gee ge no exlc ccon of he ene of jfed he h n mnd Gen h lence, we cn only exmne he ce he e n h em o efe he clm h knowledge jfed e elef, nd hen y o exc fom hem he ene of jfed elen o h gmen The f of h wo ce wll ee o oe CASE Sith has strng evidence fr the fllwing cnunctive prpsi tin (d) nes is the an wh will get the b and Jnes has ten cins in his pcet. Siths evidence fr (d) ight be that the president f the cpany assured hi that Jnes wuld be selected and that he Sith had cunted the cins in ness pcet ten inutes ag Prpsitin (d entails (e The an wh will get the b has ten cins in his pcet Let us suppse that Sith sees the entailent fr (d) t (e and accepts (e) n the grunds f (d fr which he has strng evidence n this case Sith is clearly ustified in believing that ( e is true But iagine further that unnwn t Sith he hiself nt nes will get the b And als unnwn t Sith he hiself has ten cins in his pcet t is clear that Sith des nt know that (e) is true fr (e) is true in virtue f the nuber f cins in Sith's pcet while Sith des nt n w hw any cins are in Sith's pcet and bases his belief in en a cunt f the cins in nes's pcet wh he falsely believes t be the an wh will get the b
Schemclly, Smh fed n eleng fle ngl ooon of he fom <, nd fom h oecly dw n nfe ence o e ooon of he fom A le one hng < Gee offe econd exmle llelng h f Schemclly, Smh jfed n eleng ome fle ooon P nd fom h coecly dw n nfeene o e ooon of he fom P o How, excly, n he f ce, Smh fed n eleng h (e e? The nwe, hnk, h hee w nohng wong wh
18
yhonan Reectons
hs pm pfman h s hee ws nohng wong wh he wy n whh Smh e hs ele. He no om hs ele sng no ne oeeo exmle he no smly gess no he se os ne oeeo exmle he no onsl enls. Hs ne eene o () ws song n hs onsos neene om () o (e ws lwless. Ths hee ws nohng esemlly esonsle o ohewse eee o he wy n whh Smh me o elee h (e) ws e. In oe o x enon on he h Gees s se s mos nlly e s elng he oess y whh Smh e hs ele I wll nsle hs nesnng o he lm h Smh s se n eleng h (e) s e no he exl adbal emk Smh ufably am o bl h he mn who wll ge he o hs en ons n hs oke. In lne wh hs he h lse o he onl enon o knowlege kes he ollowng om ( ) sly me o elee h P In mkng sh lm we e nng h hs een pm ally ponbl n omng hs ele. I hnk hs s wh Gee hs n mn when he seks o eng se n eleng P" I hnk hs s wh mos hlosohes who he wen on hs se he h n mn s well. Alhogh hs lm shol e soe y n exl gmenn I'll ge one leon hs neeon o se ele seems h n e se n eleng somehng h s lse Wh on hs neeon o se ele e we o sy o Gees oneexmles? I seems o me h when son s ken hs wy hs oneexmles e omleely ese gns he lm h knowlege eqls se e ele. I n s ly elee somehng h s lse hen s esy hogh ook Gee o see hs o mgne wng n neene o wa ooson h s e sly e no knowlege.
A cond Inpaion of Juificaion Thee s howee nohe wy we n nee he lm h s se n eleng h P The leng e s h n syng s se n eleng h P we e no ssessng e oees se n omng o hs ele h P we e nse elng he eqy o gons o eslshng he h o P n syng h
Gette Pbem
9
jfed n eleng h P e, we e yng h he gond on whch cce P elh he h of P Th gge econd wy of neeng he jfcon cle n he d onl ccon of knowledge ll cll he cle ed h wy he ( ) cle ( ) gond elh he h of P oe h n yng h gond elh he h of P we e ekng o elonh eween poposiion h cce nd he gounds on whch he cce The ( ) cle offe n emen of eon (o gond), ndcng h hey e de qe o elh he h of cen ooon To ece he foce of he de h n mkng hdeon eemc dgmen we e noed n n emen of gond nd no mly commenng on efomnce, wll hel o mg ne oele clly negng Gee clm. Th , Gee clly e efoe nd ell h hee w Smh, one, nd eden, nd fhe ell h hey ced on n he wy he dece Teng he oy el oy mke gnf cn dffeence n how we wll del wh n cl, none of he em n he oy piileged n he ene of eng mmne o e emc elon. Fo exmle, gennely engged, we he o decde whehe o Gee, fo he oy , fe ll, he nge eh he h lef o mon del eh he h he oy wong eh he mde Thee e me h wold nlly conce n n cl on. ong hem hee hel ng nd o cy of eng gond no he ce To od he comlexe of Gee ce, we cn f oe h o negon eel h Gee clly h he fc wong ony o wh he h old , hng oceeded qe nomlly he eden w h l elle elf, nd one, who Smh omehow deemned hd en con n h ocke, eceed he o moon (When we confon Gee wh hee fc, he dm h he doed he oy hox hng omehng o do wh ene ) Once we he dcoeed ll h, wh hll we y o elef h omeone wh en con n h ocke wold ge he omoon? F, emn e h Smh w jfed n comng o elee wh he dd h efomnce w eemclly eonle Beyond h, n h nonGee eon o he oy we wll fhe jdge h h gounds wee deqe o elh he h of wh he elee n yng h Smh w jfed n eleng wh he dd, we exe o ageemen wh Smh n h ene of j fed," fcon clm, ooed o clm conceng whehe
20
Pyonan Reecton
omeone h eoned jfly omm us o he h of wh d o e jfed Fhemoe wh ome fee ly we omm oele o h elef on he same gond h omm Smh o Thee efleon on h nonGee exmle my gge h we ed he le ( jfed n eleng h P yng ( gond (o eon elh he h of P B fo eon h wll emege le we wll no wn o ndon wh he lled he ( le n fo of ( le fo oh le e needed n lle on of knowledge lm The el h he jfon le n he donl done h knowledge eql jfed e elef now een o he wo om onen The f one he mnne n whh me o do elef Th he ( le whh demnd h he do h n n eemlly eonle mnne The eond onen elonh eween he ooon eleed nd he gond on whh eleed Th he ( le whh demnd h hee gond elh he h of he ooon eleed on he Hng deeloed he noon of le hogh exmnng nonGee exmle we n now ly o Gee f oneexmle o he donl on of knowledge hold e oo h nlon mmedely doe of h oneexmle To ee h we need only ell h Gee' gmen deended lly on he h of (d Smh jfed n eleng h one he mn who wll ge he jo nd one h en on n h oke A noed f h neeed emk o he oey of Smh efomne hen he lm e nd f he donl nly of knowledge demnd no moe hn h fo elef o e jfed hen Gee oneexmle dee gn f on he ohe hnd neeed demndng le n h Smh gond jfy he elef h one he mn who wll ge he jo nd one h en on n h oke hen he lm no e nd Gee oneexmle fl I lm h n eey eon of he Gee olem we wll fnd h me on wll e jfed n h elef hng ome o n
Gee Pobem
21
rsnsb nnr tht s hs rfrnc stsfy th ) cs f th n bcntn t th s t hs grns nt stbsh th trth f ht h bs s th ( ) cs nt b stsf h frst fct ncns s t sy tht s jstf n hs bf th scn s s t ny h kng n thgh hs bf s stfby rr t n tr snt t hr nchrnt t grnt tht hs ct th stc rsnsbty n cng t b P yt t th s t ny tht hs grns stbsh th trth f tht rstn f bs sthng n grns tht nt stbsh ts trth snt tht by tsf ngh t sh tht h hs fr hs bf rrsnsby n gnr th nsr t tht qstn s ys n t s fr ths rsn tht th grns cs s sy bscr by th rfrnc cs h t css hr f rt tht s tk ffrnt trth s hn h r tryng t c hthr kns r nt h ccss t r rng f nfrtn thn s. n sch sttn y sts grnt tht hs fr hs bf rsnsby n thgh hs grns nt stbsh th trth f ht h hs c t b. hs sttn chrctrzs Gttr rbs n a thr nfsttns fr thy r css hr hs stfby (. rsnsby) c t b s trth n grns tht nt stbsh ths trth. s n t h ths s ssb st n s f th bsc ftrs f s c nct rsnng.
The Gettier Problem and Nonmonotonicity Or qstn s ths: H cn rsn cct bf n grns tht nt stbsh ts trth yt nt b stcy rrsnsb n ng s thnk cn nsr ths qstn n gt t th hrt f th Gttr rbs by rfctng n fnnt y n hch nct nfrncs ffr fr ct nfrncs t s cny nt tht n ct rgnt th trth f th rss ncsstts th trth f th cncsn hrs th nct rgnts ths s nt s. hs s rght bt nsstng n ths ffrnc cn c thngs n th rng ght. h Gttr rbs nt ftr n n ct chnsth c tht th ny g rgnt s cty sn rgnt Fr tht ttr thy nt n n th c sts ttrbt t sktcs f ntrcng rtfcy hgh nct stnrs n thn rjctng kng cs tht f t t thm n Gt tr s t s rnry nct rcrs n
22
Pyhonan Reecton
nrmal ways and n alatng ths cass w d th sam T spps thrws s t rb Gttr ampls f thr ral sgnfcanc r r prpss t s sfl t dscrb th dffrnc btwn ddct and ndct rasnng frm th fllwng prspct: ddng frthr prmss cannt cnrt a ald ddct argmnt nt an nald n whras addng frthr prmss can dgrad a strng ndct argmnt nt a wak n cqrng addtnal nfrmatn can lad s t rs r pnn abt th trth f a prms f a ddct argmnt and thn dclar that an argmnt that w prsly cnsdrd snd s n fact nsnd Wth an ndct nfrnc hwr addtnal nfrmatn can lad s t rs dwnward r rgnal assssmnt f ts strngth wtht rsng r pnn cncrnng th trth f any prsly accptd prms Ths dffrnc s smtms markd by sayng that ddct nfrncs ar monotonc whras ndct nfrncs ar nonmonotonc Gttrlk statns ars sggst bcas ndc t nfrncs ar nnmntnc: t s ths that drs thm Mr spcfcally t s bcas f th nnmntncty f ndc t nfrncs that t s pssbl fr smn t b pstmcally rspnsbl n cmng t bl smthng n grnds that d nt stablsh ts trth Gn th nfrmatn aalabl t t mght b cmpltly rspnsbl fr hm t spps that hs grnds stablsh th trth f what h bls n thr bass H ss a standard prcdr n a standard way and nthng n th cntt sggsts that h shld nt ndd t mght b rrspnsbl fr hm t shw any mr car than h ds Thr s aftr all smthng calld bng t carfl W hwr gn a bradr rang f nfrmatn can s that hs stfcatry grnds ar n n way r anthr ndrct thgh nt n a way that cld b pctd t rcgnz r tak prsn aganst My sggstn thn s that th cntral fatr f Gttrs rgnal ampls s ths a) Gn a crtan bdy f nfrmatn r sbjct sng sm standard prcdr stfably cms t bl that a prpstn h s tr b) W ar gn wdr nfrmatn than psssss and n rt f ths wdr nfrmatn s that s grnds thgh rspnsbly nkd d nt stfy h nfatin ssessed by s
nfratin ssessed by S
Gette Pobem
23
think this b infrtin sttingthis infrtin istch btn th inc is gin n th inc r ginis t th hrt f Gttir rbs t is this infrtin istch tht incins s t sy qit crrcty tht jstifiby c t bi sthing tr yt t th s ti ny hi kng bcs s s his grns nt jstify this ci f this is crrct thn it sh b cr tht th Gttir cntrs h n frc ginst th ctrin tht kng is jstifi tr bif hn jstifictin hs t st th frc f ht h c th iii ) cs rthrr think th s ignsis hs fr th ny intrict ritins f th Gttir rbs Thy n n n infrtin istch tht s th (iii ) n iii ) css t f rt i sktch this ci in gnr y nt n fn it in r ti in sccing chtrs
Vaiaion on h Gi Poblm Gttirs rigin s h h ffsring ny f th nrry tir t rft scific nyss f kng Witht r ying bt fin tis i ii Gttirik cntrs int t br ctgris Ths tht y nry sn jstificty rcr in cntt hr it is nt in fct rib thn rri t sthing tr by ring cncsin weaker thn nry rrnt by this rcr Ths tht y nry sn jstifictry rcr in cntt hr it is nt in fct rib thn rri t nr srong tr cncsin by g frtn r s f rfrnc c s tht f int th first ctgry weakenngnerence s n ths tht f int th scn ctgry epsemcluck s Ths bs r nt ntiry t sinc in sns Gttir s in istic ck bt thy sh sr ngh t rk th sint ftrs f ths t srts f Gttir s Gttirs rigin css f rigticy int th frst ct gy sinc thy in n infrnc r js tifi fs bif t kr bif tht ts t t b tr n ry critics rsn qit rsnby tht n cnnt jstify sthing n th bsis f bif tht is fs T g rn this n st f cntrs r tht r ik Gttir's ct tht s nt ry n ny
24
Pyhonan Reecon
rmis tht is fs hs th first ctgry cn b ii int t sbctgris . On th bsis f nrmy sn stifictry rcr rris t stifi bt fs bif n thn rris t sm thing tr by icity ring cncsin weaker thn nr my rrnt by this rcr. b On th bsis f nrmy sn stifictry rcr rris t smthing tr by ring cncsin weaker thn nrmy rrnt by this rcr itht hr icity rying n rmis tht is fs s fr s kn Kith Lhrr s th first ritr t rsnt cr m f this scn kin t i b hf t his m in stgs n Kng rth n inc Lhrr intrc Gt tirty m tht hs njy rbst if rchnging crr. I see w en ener y ffice wh I nw be r Ng and r. Havi I have jus seen r. Ng depar fr a Frd, and he ells e ha he has jus purchased he car Indeed he shws e a cerificae ha saes ha he wns a Frd rever r Ng is a friend f ine wh I nw be hnes and reliable On he basis f his evidence I wuld be cpleely jusified in believing: I r. Ng wh is in y ffice wns a Frd I igh deduce fr his ha H Sene in y ffice wns a Frd
Sinc this is Gttir stry nt srrisingy it ts t tht Mr. Ngt s nt n Fr hrs Mr Hit (thgh h n rsn t ss this) s hs stifiby bi H yt nt kn it. Sinc h rch this rst by ring n infrnc frm fs rmis P) h stnr ctgry Gttir cntrm Lhrr m t ctgry b cntrm by hing (t rtrn t th thir rsn) r th infrnc dectl frm th i nc t th cncsin H itht sing P s n intrmit st n this y n fs rmis ys r in th rgmnt n Knowledge Lhrr rsnt n n mr brt m tht hs cm t b knn s th Cr Rsnr th fcts r th sm s bfr ct fr th fing n rink: Bing cr n ctis rfcts n th fct tht smn s in th ffic jst might n Fr s t incrs his chncs f bing right h cnscisy rtrts t th kr cim H, tht someone in his ffic ns Fr
Gee Pobem
25
Why th ths n cs f s strngy n st s strngy s th rr ctgry css tht s nt kn tht sn n hs ffc ns Fr? H crtny stf y c t ths fr h hs st th srt f nc tht nry s n stfyng sch c. (n fr n ryy stnnt hs nc s r thn ct. W nt sy t fr t sh s crtfcts f nrsh fr thy n cr ) cn s n thr rsn fr r nyng tht Sth kns th H s tr ct tht nt grnt tht hs grns (n th cntt f thr thngs h n t) estabshed th c tht sn n th ffc ns Fr n s cn th ctgry s n rcsy th y n hch t th th rgn Gttr : W ny tht Sth s stf n hng crtn f cs s (n f h cnnt) tht hs grounds nt qty stfy hs f. hs s nts cn rhs r frcfy y trnng t cntr tht fs nt ctgry nng ht h c stc ck h fng cs fr st Ss Out fr a drive in the cuntry I see a barn nearby standing ut fr its surrundings in sharp fcus and thus perceptually acquire the fully justified belief that it is a barn In bth directins alng y rad there are nuerus barn facsiiles hwever ere shells pre senting t the rad a facade that wuld draw an attributin f barn hd n less justified than y wn when by luc I happened t tae ntice f the ne real ba in the area Surely y justified true belief hat I see a barn is n nwledge
shr S ss nttns cncng ths rtcr : n ths crcstncs nt kn tht thr s fr . nt kn ths cs th frthr nfrtn tht th r s n th fcs rns shs tht y cnnt t s y sy cn tht sthng s jst y kng h cqstn f n nfrtn s nt hr t sy tht fr y rgn f rrsnsy h n nfrtn shs tht y rgn grns thgh rsnsy nk nt stsh tht th ct s kng t s rn. hs st Gttr rtn ffrs fr ths tht f nt ct gry fr hr rst (s s t k) cncsn s rn n th ss f rcr nqt fr th crcstncs n thn y th grc f ntr t ts t t rght. Fr ths rfctns s tht rnc n fs thgh stf rs s nt ssnt t Gttr cntrs C atgry s sh ts
26
Pyonan Reecon
r is rra a akr caim ssnial (Cagry xampls s is) Fr s rasns narr iagnss f s pariclar cass il n sr r gnral prpss s far as can s r nrlying rasn a rfs say a s bif amns kng in al s cass is a rfs ackng a is grns sablis r f caim maks. n ac cas a a ilain f iii ) cas in ris raiina finiin.
Epimic Rponibiiy f am rig in sggsing a Gir cnrxampls pn n aking nin f jsificain rng ay n i is mping ink a aking i rig ay il yil an accpabl accn f knlg. s i rns r i sms a adequategounds raing f jsificain clas is n islf sfficin yil an accpabl accn f knlg Firs prblms aris frm a ink f as Bnr cnrxampls. Ty cnc pismic irrspnsibiliy. T fing is n frm Bnr b is in is syl. Back Girs rigina xamp: Suppse that Sith has grunds suffiient t justify the belief that (e), {fA persn with ten ins in his pet will get the prtin, is true This tie there is n Gettier funnybusiness (e) is in fat true, and Sith ands grunds that establish the truth f (e). Furtherre, n the basis f these grunds he infers that (e) is true Beynd this, hwever, Sith as sinerely hlds the fase belief that the president is a pathlgial iar and an never be trusted n any subet We an suppse that he has very gd reasn t believe this Cnsidering this fat, Sith then reasns quite bady (r updy r ncoecy that in this partiuar ase the president is nt lying Thus given his full set f beliefs, Sith ught nt thin hi sef ustified in believing (e) but he des s nnetheless n this sit uatin even thugh he pssesses reasns that ustify (e) d nt thin we want t say that Sith nws that (e) is true eple d nt nw things that, given ther things they believe, they ught nt believe
Tis siain is in sm ays rrs f Gir siains. n Gir xampls picr Smi basing is knlg claim n a bac f inc a l nrmally sify kin f claim Smi as ma. W n spps ourselves in pssssin f sm frr inc a gras inial sppr n ic Smi bass is bif. T ir s f bifs accp incs inia bifs accps b inia frc f
Gettie Pobem
27
hs bfs s dgradd n r dr frark n hs n cas agn ha Sh cands vdnc ha acc as hy adqa jsfy h rsn () b bynd hs agn ha h as accs as vdnc rsns d n acc and hch f r d dgrad h vdna sr gvn by h rsns d acc n a cas k hs ss rng say ha Sh kns ha () s r fr ng hngs arnd ahgh Sh has grnds ha jsfy h ca ha () s r h ds n jsfaby bv hs. ss hn ha a rfrnc jsfd rfranc as as a rfrnc jsfyng grnds s (a as ss r fr cran knds f kndg) an ssna ngrdn n an accn f kndg as jsfd r bf dand fr ha hav cad a ( ) cas arss fr hr ra sns as Fr a c s rasnng fr hs grnds b nnfaacs. W n gran ha kns ha P f hgh n ssssn f adqa grnds fr P h rasns bady h cn csn ha PY nhr rasn fr ncdng a rfranc cas s ha d n an say ha a rsn kns vryhng nad by h r hngs h bvs. T c a faar a a rsn h kns a f Ecds as dfnns and s frh ds n hrby kn a h hrs f Edan gry n rdr kn n f hs hrs b r a rsn s base hr bf n h as dfnns and rvsy rvd h rs and d hs crrcy hs rfcns sggs as a frs aran ha s h hrd cas f h rgna bcndna n ars: kns ha P ff
() P s r () bvs ha P ( ) jsfaby ca bv ha P and ( ) s grnds sabsh h rh f P
B hs s ngan frs bcas h advrba hrasng n ( ) aks h scnd cas rdndan Scnd h frh cas rn drs h frs cas rdndan nd hs s ran bcas rfcs h fac ha rh s n sy an ndndn far f kndg. c back hs. Fnay h fran as sands ds n rfc a hss cn ra hs dscssn: n sayng ha kns ha P ar s ang rhas h s fr ayha h grnds ha aks as sab shng h rh f P d sabsh s rh. Tha s h ( ) cas has as s arg s grnds as rfrrd n h ( ) cas n rdr
Pyhonan Reecton
28
t k th tw justfcatn causs frm rftng aart w can cm bn thm an rng th tw runant causs arr at th f wng bcntna:
knws that P ff
justfaby cam t b that P n gruns that stabsh th truth f P.
f a sgan s n Knwg s nt smy justf tru bf but n th cancs f Wrw Wsn t s justf tru bf justfaby arr at
Conusion f ths anayss s rght thn thnk w can unrstan why rsnss t Gttr rbms ha takn th frms thy ha. My gnra thss s that a f ths rsnss ar msunrst atmts t fn a surrgat fr th grunsauatng ( ) caus n th anayss ha rsnt. hs stns sm rsuas t th tnt that thy armat ths ga an wth suffcnt ngnuty ths armatn can b ma qut cs Mr y hwr n thr attmts t fn a surrgat fr th grunsauatng asct f stmc jugmnts thy ar wrnghawrngha n th way that thrs that cmmt th naturastc faacy ar wrng ha. n th nt thr chatrs sha try t shw ths n ta.
Nots 1 Gettier 1 963 spea in the plura about Gettier probes in order to enopass the arge and loose faily of ounterexaples spawned by the Gettier originas or a detaied survey of the various fors that the Gettier probes have taen together with an assessent of the various answers to the see Shope 1983 2 t an be noted in passing that the stated version of the prinipe of osure for nowledge is wrong as it stands sine even though P entais Q S ight dedue Q fro P in soe invalid way n that ase I do not thin we would say S is justified in believing that Q This diffiulty is easiy fixed by insisting that S coecty dedues Q fro P 3 As far as I now Robert Aeder is the only person involved in this disussion to adopt this line (Aleder 94; Aleder 1 9 6) I annot how ever tel fro these essays how Aeder proposes to dea with indutivey based nowledge lais 4. Chisho 1 986 248 any of the points ae oneing the nterpretation of the
Gette obem
29
expressin " is justified in believing that " were develped in detail by Catherine Lwy 198. repeat the here, first, because they are wrth repeating, and secnd, because they will play a central rle in an arguent with a cnclusin fundaentally ppsed t the cnclusin that wy her self drew fr the 6 Seties we can legitiately grant that Sith's grunds justify the belief that is true withut being able t prduce these grunds ur selves This happens, fr exaple, with appeals t expert authrity The psitin adpted here parallels ne taken by red Dretske in his essay "Cnclusive Reasns 191a advanced essentially the sae psi tin, thugh withut applicatin t Gettier prbles, in Edence and Meanng 196 n n Cetanty Wittgenstein als ces clse t adpting this line as well r exaple
C 243. One says " knw when ne is ready t give cpelling grunds " knw relates t the pssibility f denstrating the truth r the cntext it is clear that Wittgenstein is nt thinking f deducte denstratins 8 Here fllw the nw cn cnventin f calling a deductive arguent sund if it is valid and has true preises 9. These ters were intrduced n the basis f a nt altgether apt analgy with psitive ntnic functins that can be presented as cn stantly rising r at least nnfalling curves, as ppsed t thse nnnt nic functins whse curves g bth up and dwn 10 Rbert K Shpe 19 83 has actually catalgued nnetyeght exa ples relevant t Gettier prbles 1 1 ehrer, 1 965 12 ehrer, 190 13 Lehrer, 194 14 Perhaps even re clearly, in "An Alleged Defect in Gettier Cun terexaples' Richard eldan prduces the fllwing specien f this kind f exaple We can alter the exaple slightly, hwever, s that what justifies fr Sith is true and he knws that it is Suppse he deduces fr [the riginal stateent f the evidence] its existential generalia tin n There is sene in the ffice wh tld Sith that he wns a rd and even shws hi a certiicate t that effect, and wh up till nw has always been reliale and hnest in his dealings with Sith , we shuld nt, is true and Sith knws that it is, since he has crrectly deduced it fr m which he knws t be true. On the basis f n Sith believes sene in the ffice wns a rd eldan, 1 9 4, 253
30
Pyhonan Reecton
Again we arrive at a categry b Gettier result Brian Sys has an exa ple f uch the sae ind as Lehrer's Clever Reasner Syrs 967 15 Ernest Ssa "pisteic resuppsitins in appas 979 84 . 16 BnJur's cunterexaples are aied priarily against scalled extealist r reliabilist accunts f nwledge. n chapter 3 will argue that these cunterexaples d nt have the full frce that BnJur attributes t the They d hwever have iprtant cnsequences fr the analysis f certain inds f nwledge Fr a budget f BnJur cunterexaples see BnJur 1985 37ff 7 we this pint t ichael Bratan 1 8 Cf "Open cvenants f peace penly arrived at
2 Fourth-Clause Theories
Analye of Knowledge t th cs f th rs chatr sggst that ths h ha tr t s Gttr rbs ha bn ngag n th snrst attt t fn a srrgat fr th grnsaatng ( ) cas that st fr art f a crrct accnt f kng cas hs rgra can b n t ays Frst ght h t strctr stanars f stc rsnsbty W can an that bha as staby a gathrr f nc t th tr ght an that t b stcay rsnsb n bng that h, st thh gnt nt h s ars f all nfratn rant t th trth f h hs an fr tta rant nc nat th thrat f Gttr statns by bckng th nfr atna satchs that gnrat th h rst f ths arach hr s that st g st f r rnary cas t ncty bas kng stn ang ths ns ys hat ght b ca a nctonal equvalent f a strng rsn f sktcs n th rcss f safgarng rca kng cas aganst th thrats s by Gttr statns cnc t th sktc that nt ray kn a grat any f th thngs that cny thnk kn ! Bcas f ths thrat f sktcs ths h ha attt t s Gttr rbs ha rary attt t ach ths thrgh sgnfcanty rasng stanars f stc rsnsbty f bcas f th thrat f sktcs anng r f s s tc rfranc nt sr r rss thn t ss that th ny atat n t ths h ar tryng t rsr th cr a f th tratna accnt f kng s t ac sdeconstants n 31
32
Pyhonan Reectons
t ccasns n c a nray aqat prcr s py sc tat t nfratna satcs tat y Gttr prs cannt ars Tat s nsta f askng anytng r f a outh cas s ntrc spcfyng crcstancs sc tat n st fay cs t stng tr n ts crcstancs tn s f cannt n t stats f kngat ast fr Gt trk rasns. Snc t kn h n nt kn r n spps tat s appy stat n ts ay ca cass f ts kn eteal cass. Ts tn s t patt fr a sca outhclause anayss f kng sa t kn tat P f () P s tr () s tat P () stfay ca t tat P, an () frs s f n as gt say a Gttrfr zn. T task f t frt cas tn s t ay n ta scnstrants tat stat n a annr tat prtcts fr Gttr cntraps T rpat ts cnstrants ar ta n t sns tat n kn ntng f t n stfay cng t stng Gn ts stnctn tn nta cass an ta cass n a a cnnnt ay f srtng t an nr stanng ars anayss f kng nt f t cn practc f spy ng anayss f kng nt ntrnast an tast pstns. Ts cassfcatn strks as ng t cr snc s anayssncng ts an n ts captrcntan t kns f cass nsta f gn t t as assptn tat knowledge s at least tue bele, tn anayss f kng can cassf n trs f t atna nta r ta cass ty nk ntrna Cas ta Cas
1 ) FrtCas Trs nfasty
N nta Cas 2) r Casa an Snct Trs Gan Drtsk)
N ta Cas 3) T Orgna (4) ng qas Dfntn s Usay Tr Bf ntrprt n ts captr an t ang ap f an anayss tat ncs t an ntrna cas an an ta cassca nfasty anayss n t t sccng captrs an anayss tat rp t ntrnast (pstc rspnsty) cas atgtr an ry cpty n an ta cas t ck Gttrk prs
outhCause heoes
33
ndasibiy Thoris n nng th ttn ctn tht kng s stf t bf h ncnt css h S qt stfby bss hs gnt tht d s t n nc W h f g stn f s tn tth p hs d tht gs fts ths stfctn W ths fs t t tht s gns stbsh th tth f d n f ths sn nt sy tht kns tht d f ths ccty gnss th b tht Gtt s s f th ttn fntn f kng thn t s tht th st stghtf y t ths b s t cs tht scfcy cs ths ssbty hs hs bn ttt by nb f hshs n ty f ys bt th bstknn n st fy bt f ths ch s fn n nyss tht snt th ttn fntn f kng th ht h c t b knn s ndeeasbly clauses n ht fs sh n n s t th ys n hch nfsbty thsts cn b n by cnts t fth n fth qfctns t th nty sb stn. n nng ths stnnt nt s n gnts f s ts ncng Lh sn Sn n s bt s Msh Sns c n sbt ssy stc Dfsbty t g stct t th scssn. Bgnnng n s tn y Sn ffs th fng sch f th nyss kng: ow that h ( h tue ( juted belevg that h that thee a tue body o evdece e uch that juted belevg e ad e jute ( beleve that h o the ba o h jutcato ad (v jutcato o h deeable (that . 163
Sns tsk s t g scfctn f nfsbty by fng n th has cs ft bnk n th fth cntn. ft fst ttt tht s bsy t stng Sn ffs th fng sggstn vb Thee o tue body o evdece uch that the cojucto o e ad e al to juty h 164
thnk ths s csy ht n nfsbty cs sh sy bt Sn n ths fn sns t fth n fth y f sch s ftn. f ths nt thgh s stgs
34
Pyhonian Reection
Stage One Th frst contrxa to th s nfasbty cas jst stat has co n aros fors. Hrs a rson fro Paas an San ho ar rstatng an xa fro Lhrr an Paxson ab t th Ma Mrs Grabt. sees a an naed T Grabi seal a b fr a ibrary We ay suppse ha has whaever jusificain we lie fr believing ha Grabi sle he b Hwever we suppse ha enirey unnwn T Grabis her has said ha T was n in he library bu ha Ts win brher Ti was in he library Le be he saeen ha T Grabis her has said hese hings This saeen is such ha if cae have i as addiinal evi dence hen 's jusificain wuld be ls. 29
So far so goo No th Gttr tst Bu suppse ha T Grabis her is deened ha T has n win brher and ha he her's rears are hus cpleely wrng all f which is unnwn 29
Unr ths crcstancs Paas an San sggst that can sill be said nw ha T Grabi sle he b even hugh here s a rue saeen ha wuld sully he jusifica in (29
So t ss that or frst nfasbty cas s too strong an so ofcaton s n. hs task s gn sharr focs f ask foong Lhrr an Paxson ho ar to stngsh ths n cas hr t ss that a jstfcaton has not bn fat fro th aarnty sar Nogot cas scss n th ros chatr) hr th aton of a frthr c of nforaton (that Nogot ha no car) os nr n a jstfcaton Lhrr an Paxson attt to sarat th to cass n th foong ay n on cas [ th Nogot xa] y jstfcaton ns on y bng coty jstf n bng th tr statnt to b fas h n th othr [ th Grabt xa] t os not" n th Ma Mrs Grabt xa osssss no nc that o jstfaby a h to b that Mrs Grabt not say th thngs sh s th story s to h has no bfs concng a Mrs Grabt at a an ths no bass for bng that sothng tr of hr s fas n th Nogot xa on th othr han has nc that jstfs h n bng that th t roostonNogot os not ha a ors fas rthr
35
urthCaue here
r f ths tr rstn r t s rgn nc ths rgn nc b nrct Sn grng th ths gnss s frthr qfctn t (b) yng: (c) thr s n tr by f nc e sch tht () e stfs n bng tht e s fs n (b) th cnnctn f e n e fs t stfy h " (66.
age Two hs n cs ss t s t stngsh th Ngt cs fr th M Mrs Grbt cs ng s t ny kng n th frst cs n t ss grnt t n th scn. Bt Sn thnks ths n rsn f th nfsbty cs hs trbs f ts n bcs f th fng rrt cntr t (c). Rghy rsn ss hy rck hng tr n n s ts sy stf n ths nc e n bng tht th rck brk th n. N th Gttr tst. On ths s nc s s jstf n bng tht h s bt t hr n s th n brk S s hr tht nknn t h sffr sn hys gc srr n bcs f ths nthr hr nr s th n brk. ht h nthr s nr hr th n brk c e hn s nc ss t stfy fsh ( tht h s n hr th n brk) n frthrr th trth tht h nt s n hr th n brk f t hs frr nc ft hs rgn stfctn. ht s hs nt hrng n nt sng th n brk cnsttt nc tht rr hs nc n fr f th c tht t brk Skng r tchnc ts cn s h Sn ttts t th ths cntr by ntrcng th ntn f rsn h s stcy y stt" W cn g n nt· t chrctrztn f ht s rng hn ns jstfctn s fsb by syng tht h s ss thn y stt th rsct t th nc brng n h h ntn f bng y stt s f crs r n ny f sns f th r nyn h fs shrt f nscnc s thby ss thn y stt" ( 68) Bt n f th ntn f bng y stt s r ccrng t Sn t st ks sns t sk f rsns stc stn s bng r r ss cs t bng : Fr a given episeic psiin a an igh apprach such an ideal sae any f a variey f degrees He gh pic up a bi f infrain here and a bi here in pieceeal fashin Irnically
36
Pyhonan Reecton a an wll setes wnd up n a pstn that s wrse than the ne fr whch he ean, en thuh he has ed clser t an deally stuated pstn by acqurn se new nfratn The acqustn f such a lted prtn f aalable new edence s we ht say ne extree n the cntnuu f ways n whch a an culd e tward a re deally stuated pstn The ther extree s the acqustn f all the addtnal nfratn but ths extree s an epstelst's ppe drea. We need se thn n between 1 72-73)
ftr a nmbr f intrmiat sts ain arrivs at th flling sggstin fr rstricting th rang f tntially fating vinc t ill b a cmlt scritin f h things might chang fr 5 if his by f vinc r rg f all fals mmbrs ach f ths bing rlac by its nia ( 76 f think that t th tnt that a rsn has fals blifs that rsn is bnight can say that n h has ha his fals blifs rlac by tr ns has bcm nbnight W ths arriv at a n vrsin f clas (iv) that catrs bliv th sirit f ain's rsal mins its frmal traings: (ivf) 5 l b cmltly stifi in bliving h vn if h bcms nbnight This clas sms t srt t th rblmatic cass in th ay that ain ants 5 s nt kn that smn in his ffic has a Fr fr nbnight ith rsct t Ngt's mislaing activitis 5s stificatin is fat Hvr 5 s kn that Tm Grabit stl th bk sinc having n vis (tr r fals) cncing th ma Mrs Grabit his stificatin is nt fat nr nbnight nss Finally an this is ain's nic int 5 s kn that th in ill brak fr nbnight h ill nrstan hy h ni thr ss nr hars it brak an ths facts ill n lngr fat his stificatin n ain's rs th fating ffct f th availabl cntrvinc is in t vrrin ( 80)
Stage hree Bt almst nblivably thr ar still ifficltis ain ntics that 5 hn nbnight may cm int ssssin f a n st f tr blifs that may rvi him ith an ntirly ew stificatry argmnt that ts t t b infasibl T gar against this ain tlls s that n t rqir that a stifcatin b infasibl nly if th [riginal stificatin slf l cntin t
outhCaue heoie
3
hd ndr h rcss f bcng r day sad s cay 808). I n an Sans chncay c ffr car hs nn n a fray crrc san f h ndfasby cas. nfray r fna rsn f h ndfasby cas g) gh rad as fs g) c fr s nr adsns h sa dnc ha sfs n bng ha h cnn sfy h n bng ha h n afr h bcs nbnghd s I rad hs assags a acan bn an adqagrnds nrran f sfcan and an scrsnsby nrran f sfcan srks as ransarn. s hs can g back h frs rsn f an ndfasby cas I cd fr San b) hr s n r bdy f dnc e sch ha h cnncn f e and e fas sfy h 64) San and hrs r d abandn sch a s fran f h ndfasby cas bcas f cncrns r Mad Mrs ra b I hnk h and hr rrs r sd by hs a gan I hnk s hngs r cary f abandn r sn as rgd scars and ac rss n h cn f h aca sc aan. s h sry s d has a srng sfcan f a sandard y fr h bf ha rab s h bk. hs f r acd as as acd d dg h ar as dgd . Cncng d hn say h ssssd a sfd r bf sfaby arrd a. B ss hard as ddn ha s hr sn rsaby n a sn kn had arbd h hf a n brhr nad Ss has a har. nd rbr d n ny a rgd rsc ha gs s h nsd nfran ab h ray cd h hf. ) Hr I hnk gh cnn say ha as scay rsnsb n cng b ha s h bk b d n ngr say ha hs grnds sfy hs ca. hs s a racca ar n a hshca n h rrd snc f a n rsns a scfc chang an ynss dn fcan hch s b da h bfr hs ss can b sd s a nn ha b dd r fy n char , h rr f a ssb n rggrs a hghr f scrny ha s b bfr can ha a sfd bf cncng h s h bk
38
Pyhonan Reecton
Fhemoe wh hs hnge n esem sndds we wll no longe nd s gonds s sfyng hs elef nd no longe e wllng o sy h he knows h Tom G sole he ook. Fnlly sose we follow o nqes fhe nd dsoe he sd soy of Md Ms. Gs demen. ow wh e we o sy? Fs we mgh gn feel onen o sy h w know who sole he ook Tom G Fhemoe we wll he no eson o go k on o eos jdgmen h j sfly me o elee h Tom sole he ook. B hng lened ll we he leed do we wn o sy s Swn nd ohes seem omfole syng h nw h Tom sole he ook? I onfess h one I mgne myself lly engged n he nqygeng nfomon y my n ons end o flflo. We n o nesgons hd o del wh oenlly defeng ee of edene efoe we old hnk o seles jsfed n lmng h Tom G sole he ook. nl we he omleed o nesgon we enly wll no sy h knew h Tom G sole he ook fo s long s he Ms. G hllenge emns nnsweed hs gonds (nd o gonds) e no deqe o eslsh h lm Wh do we sy o fe hs hllenge hs een me? If we e nlned o hnk h Ms. Gs emk smly sed dff ly fo 's sfon hen I hnk h one hs dffly s me we wll e nlned o sy h hs gonds wee jsfyng nd ndeed he dd know h Tom G sole he ook Ths I hnk s he nl ew of seo who s gen ll he elen nfo mon one. On he ohe hnd f we he lly een noled n he nesgon nd he gone o some oleehs ge del of oleo hek he ey of Ms. Gs emk hen I hnk h o de owd s gonds (nd hene hs knowl edge) mgh e qe dffeen. Insed of hnkng of he fs nd ng s jsfon we my hnk of oseles s elng hs sfon wh ee one of o own In hs se I do no hnk we wll e nlned o sy h knew h Tom G sole he ook ese we wll no e nlned o sy h s gonds es lshed he h of hs lm. I fnd h my nons lee dk/ fshons I shf esees n hs wy To go k esonses o he Gee olems egn y exm nng s l esonng. seemed gh o en esns on how esoned fo hs esonng o on s jsfed. Fo exmle seemed gh s mny nssed gns Gees ognl exmles h s esonng no deend on he ene of flsehoods. B when he seond we of Geelke oneexmles eed eme le h sh eson les n smle fom ws
39
ourhCause Theores
naeqate t s at ths pnt that nefeasbty thersts make a sbte bt prfn change n tactcs nstea f pacng frther restrc tns n s actual perfrmance nefeasbty thersts attempt t state n sch a manner that any jstfcatn he accepts be acceptabe t s n partcar Sans strategy f nbenghtng s an ngens attempt t garantee that e enrse s reasnng fr nbenghtng hm emnates jst thse pssbtes that presy e s at east n the eampes ner cnseratn) t thh enrsement n a sense the nefeasbty thersts best n a arger an arger share f thse prtectns that we enjy as fy nfrme etea spectatrs f Getter statns he crtcs f nefeasbty theres n ther t ept ths prege spectatra pstn t fn eer mre sbte msmatches beteen the nfrmatn that e as spectatrs pssess an that hch een ner eazatn s asse he psht s that eer mre cmpe an sbte nefeasbty cases are prce t be met th eer mre cmpe an sbte Getterke cntereampes Fnay r nttns fcker then g t My sggestn then s that nefeasbty thersts nstea f epcty ncng an enrsng ) case n ther anayses attempt t captre the frce f sch a case by eazng s jstf catry settng n a ay that n r enrsement hae nt presente an argment shng that sch an etensna match beteen the ) case an a efeasbty case cannot be achee thgh t seems cear that t cannt be achee n any natra nttey cear manner Mre eepy f my agnss f the rng frce behn the nefeasbty thersts prgram s crrectthat they are tryng t make an eteast case the rk f the ) casethen t s har t see hat mtatn remans fr prsng t erhaps t s as cear hy prsng sch a prgram nes cmmttng smethng akn t the natrastc faacy
No This slide ward a funcinalequivalen sepicis is a sandard, hugh fen unacnwledged feaure f heries f episeic jusifica inh f he fundainalis and f he anifundainalis ind Such heries are exained in deail in he secnd par f his s udy 2 Se have challenged he assupin ha nwledge us nvlve elief There are hin exaples ha incline us in his direcin. y wn reacin hese exapleswhich ypically invlve idi savans and he lieis ha hey presen insances where we are inclined exend ur cncep f nwledge cver a new and curus case. is raher le he
40
Pyhonan Reecon
decision o rea iaginary nbers as nbers even hogh hey are no indicaors of qaniy 3. Swain 1 9 74 Reprined in appas and Swain 1 9 78 age references are o he laer sorce 4 Noe ha his parenheical rear conains soehing lie he iii ) case. The exaple appeared firs as far as now in Lehrer and axson 969 The version presened here is fro he excellen srvey inrodcion in appas and Swain 978 6. n "piseic Defeasibiliy Swain ells a parallel sor involving a deened cardinal and he draws a parallel conclsion fro i. See appas and Swain 1978 666. 7 Lehrer and axson 969 Reprined in appas and Swain 978 age references are o he laer sorce. Swains version of he clase is ore coplex ivf There is an evidenceresriced alernaive Fs * o i episeic Fs sch ha is jsified in believing ha h! is episeically derivable fro he oher ebers of he evidence coponen in Fs * 1 77 B hin have cagh is gis Swains exaple goes bac o Geiers firs case which was dis cssed in he previos chaper. cally Swains sory is no Geiers n he Geier origina Sih jsifiably believes ha soeone else ones, will ge he prooion hen Sih ges he prooion hiself n he Swain ver sion ones jsifiably believes ha he hiself will ge he prooion hen soeone else Sih ges i Noice ha his is ore han a siple nae reversal. However disoriening hese changes ae no syseaic differ ence. Anyway Swain finds a rearably ingenios way of odifying he Geier original ha prodces a conerexaple o ivf. goes as follows: Sppose everhing is as before excep ha for soe reason Jones happens o now ha Sih he an who is really going o ge he job has en coins in his poce f so hen in he relevan evidence resriced alernaive o ones's episeic fraewor i will be evi den for ones ha Sih will ge he job since i is ac eviden for hi ha Sih will no ge he job and alo eviden for hi ha Sih has en coins in his poce B his renders i eviden for hi in he alernaive ha he an who will ge he job has en coins in his poce. According o ivf Joness jsificaion for h is indefeasible and he wold have nowledge. B neiher of hese hings is so ( 80) 1 0 Acally in his case a ad cardinal
3 Externalism
Rsnss t Gttir rbms sy bgin ith ntr n mst ys coec ignsis f f in rticr rtivy sim Gttir cs. Dfsibiity nyss r rmt by th rfctin tht stnr qit rsnb stifictin cn sm tims b vrrin r ft by th iscvry f n itin sy tfthy fct h strtgy f th fsibiity th rists is t cntin t h th tritin vi tht t b kng smthing mst b jstifi tr bif bt thn thy g byn this t inc n trn stnr intn t sitt 5 in mnnr rhs qit nknn t 5 tht insts him frm Gttir cntrms n this chtr i cnsir vris rsnss tht rt mr ricy frm th tritin finitin by rcing th istmic rsnsibiity cs ith n trnist cs rthr thn simy smnting it ith n tist cs Fing th cssifi ctin givn t th bginning f chtr 2 i c sch rchs tist r ry tist nyss sinc thy n trnist bt n intist cs t th cim tht kng is tr bif Cncing tist sitins sh ttmt t stbish th fing gnr thss
1 trnist thris tht r puel tist r rft by cntrms t vitins f th (iii ) cs f th nysis ffr in chtr . his think is mttr c byn bt by rgmnts r snt by Lrnc Bnr Nt iviing tist thris int t ctgrisths tht tk th ntin f cstin s cntr 4
42
Pyhonan Reecon
and tose tat aeal to te sbjnctve sall arge for two fr ter teses Pre casal teores of nowledge fal becase tey do not catre te force of te ) clase of te analyss ave roosed Sbnctve teores gan ter lasblty recsely becase te sbjnctve constrants tey ntrodce are gded by a tact accetance of te ) clase e frst wo teses are defended n ts cater; te trd tess wll be defended n cater 4
Th A aion of Exnam One way to motvate an etealst aroac to nowledge s to note tat n Getters frst case Smt came correctly to beleve tat someone wt ten cons n s ocet wold get te romoton by a flue or by a ay accien Smt sng a erfectly standard rocedre tat s sally relable ales t n a contet n wc t s not relable and arrves at a belef tat trns ot to be correct anyway ll Getter roblems ave ts roerty bt tey aear n ter most strng form n category estemclceamles f we are strc by te accdental correctness of Smts belef t s temtng to say tat Smts defcency does not le n te way s belef stands to s easons for oldng t bt nstead wt te way s belef stands to te fac beleved Ts dagnoss loos otward rater tan nward e most natral sggeston conceng te natre of ts relatons s to say tat t s causal. o cont as nowledge a belef mst be casally relatedn te rgt sort of wayto te fact t conces! casal teory of nowledge faces a nmber of tass t mst secfy wat nds of nowledge come nder ts rvew t mst tell s wat sorts o f casal relatons are te sort Later n ts cater wll eamne n detal ow lvn Goldman n s early wrtngs on ts sbect attemted to deal wt tese tocs wll sow ow faced wt contereamles s casal teory s drven n te drecton of a sbjnctvst teory Bt before gong nto detal ws to eamne te crtcsms, brefly noted n cater tat Bonor as brogt aganst relablst teors of nowledge and ndeed aganst all rely eteal teores of nowledge tn tere s sometng nqestonably rgt abot tese crtcsms also tn Bonor overetends tem and as a reslt obscres some
43
easm
f th mrtant insghts f xtaism hat xtalism s cn tain imrtant insghts is thnk rth insstng n
BonJou agains h Riabiiss n a arty f acs Bnr has l a sris f cntrx amls ntn t sh that a rsns blif can stan n th kin f rlatinsh that xtaists tak t b knlgcnfrrng an yt stll nt kn it t b tr this n h rsnts a srs f gntts ith charactrs sharng th flng fatrs ) hy ach n fact ssss rabl clairyant rs ) On th bass f ths rs thy ach cm t b that th rsint is n N Yrk hich n fact h s Byn this Bnr attrbts crtan istmc falings r shrt cmings t ach charactr ith th intntn f shing that ach in hs n articlar ay s hghy rratinal an rrsnsb n acctng [th blif hn g n th ght f his own sbct cnctin f th statn" 198 3 mhasis a) Bcas f ths irratnaity an rrsnsbty Bnr ns that any f ths charactrs nows that th rsnt s n N Yrk h string f xams nfls as fls:
amanha a) bls sh s clairyant bt tht g grns an b) frthr bls th rsint is n N Yrk cntrary t g nc sh sssss
Caspe a) blis h s claryant tht ssssing g nc fr ths blf an n sssss strng inc t th cn trary an b) frthr bls th rsint s n N Yrk bt tht g grns
Mau is k Casr bt has g inc that no one s caryant Bnr thnks xams f this kin sh that eteal r jective reliaility i nt enugh t ffet ujective irainality f the acceptance f a elief i eriuly unreanale r unwarranted fr the eliever wn tandpint then the ere fact that unenwnt t hi it exitence in the circutance lawfully guarantee it tuth will nt uffice t render the beief epiteically jutified and thereby an intance f nwledge. 4
44
Pyhnan Reectns
Wth som rsrtons to b not tr thnk ths s corrct. My ncson of th cs n th crtr for knog gn n chtr rfcts ths grmnt. Bonor nt mgns th trnst tchng hs oston n y tht cs st ths contrms: n addn he lawle cnnecn beween belef and ruh and he absence f reasns agans he parcular beef n quesn us als be he case ha he beleer n quesn has n cgen reasns eher relae hs wn suan r n general fr hn ng ha such a lawle cnnecn des nt exs ha s ha belefs f ha nd are n relable. 40
mofcton of ths kn ry torts grt from n tst n th rcton of m ntsttst oston bt Bonor nts mor. Notc tht n Bonors frst thr ms thr r sros cot confcs mong th rsons ros bfs hs confcts form th bss of th chrg tht h or sh s hghy rrton n rrsonsb n cctng bf" n Bonors nt m hs forth no sch confct sts ony nrrntnss Snc t s crc for or scsson qot ths m n f Nran under ceran cndns whch usualy ban s a c pleely relable claryan wh respec ceran nds f subjec aer He pssesses n edence r reasns f any nd fr r agans he general pssbly f such a cgne pwer r fr r agans he hess ha he pssesses One day Nran ces belee ha he resden s n New r Cy hugh he has n edence eher fr r agans hs belef n fac he belef s rue and resuls fr hs claryan pwer under crcusances under whch s cpleely relable 4 1
Dos Normn kno Bfor tryng to nsr tht qstonn crtny bfor tryng to r ny hosohc concsons from or nsrt s orth notng tht Normn sms bt nhng s Bonor scrbs hm Normn hs no tht h s croynt so from hs ont of h mry fns hmsf bng somthng tht hs st o nto hs h. Bonor ots st ths ont n orr to chrg Normn th rrtonty Fr hs sandpn here s apparenly n way n whch he cud nw he resden's whereabus Why hen des he cnnue anan he belef ha he resden s n New r Cy? Why sn he ere fac ha here s n way as far as he nws fr h hae baned hs nfran a suffcen reasn fr classfyng hs belef as an unfunded hnch and casng accep And f
eim
45
Nan de nt d thi in't he theeby being epiteically ira tinal and irepnible? 42
On th bss f ths Bnr rs ry strng cncsn gnst rbsts n by ctn gnst tsts n gnr: Prt f ns stc ty s t rfct crtcy n ns bfs n sch crtc rfctn rcs bng thngs t hch n hs t ns kng n rb ns f stc ccss (42. nt fn ths rss thnk Bnrs Nrn gns ts rnt strngth fr t srcs: frst r fn strst f cs t crync hch s hr rrnt n sc n th crsy scnnct y tht Bnr chrctrs rc thr crynt rncs t f th b s t r thnk ght h ffrnt ttt tr crync f n tn t ssng tht t sts s ss tht t ntrs sth nt th n f f ryy f s ths cnsr th fng . Ss tht rcss th fng crynt r thgh tht rzng t. Whn rng bk h n n gn crynty ss" th nng n n th nt g bfr h trns t t. Whn h s ths h sy sks r t th scn n n th g thgh h snt ntc tht h s ths thr (W cn gn hysgst kng ths rrkb s cry h styng y nts n rng. Unr ths cntns b ng t sy tht kns tht g SO f Bnrs ucue of Empiical nowledge bgns th th rs cn ff th ct nt t sk t ssby cnfctng bsrtns hn n fct h ss" ths rs crynty bfr h ts th g n sks r th ftr h s s Gn th stry s t ncn t sy tht h s kn ths Frthrr nt chng y n n th sghtst f frthr t tht fry bs n ry g grns tht crync s nt st. frtr Bnrs strngr c tt s n kn ths nss h hs st grns rrntng hs rnc n hs crynt rs strks s y cntrntt. hs fctts cn b srt by r n h rnttn f r by r str th sstn f r bs n th k r gn t s by fcty gnry knn s rrctn. hr r rtcr rctrs (n scs jnts n thr cs ssct th rrctn. Mst kn nthng bt rrctn n f thy cct th fk thry f thr bng n f snss thy cty h s nctb t ts stnc Crtny st n nthng k "rfct crtcy" n th bfs tht c fr ths src. Mst
46
Pyhnan Reectns
haen he sghes ea how hey can e ha her egs are sghy pare whou ookng a hem or feeng any conac wh surrounng objecs Ths howeer oes no make a beef on hs maer eher rraona or rresponsbe f ha s rgh whch hnk s hen Bonour's Norman eampe oes no esabsh wha s nene esabsh namey ha we hae a posiie uy o refec crcay on he sources of our beef an hae behae rresponsby an rraonay f we o no o so
Exna Gound Here mgh hep o ask how hese conseraons bear on he wo jusfcaon causes ha appear n he ocrne ha knowege s jusfe rue beef jusfaby arre a n he frs pace hese refecons sugges ha causa heores n parcuar an hnk eeas heores n genera mus noke somehng ke he ) cause n orer o ecue cases of conscous cogne confc For he reasons hae jus presene o no hnk he Bonour eam pes show ha he cause nees o be mae sronger han hs Tung o he ) cause capures he ea ha n sayng knows somehng we enorse s grouns as esabshng he ruh of wha hos on hose grouns Preousy hae ene o use he wors grouns" an reasons" nerchangeaby an hae ofen spoken of eence Ths way of speakng suggess ha s jusfcaon mus ake he form of an arume, an when we enorse s grouns we are ncang ha hs argumen or somehng cose o esabshes he ruh of he hng he cams o know n hese mos recen eampes howeer we are no eang wh argumens bu wh powers s a nae caroyan beees ha page 1 0 of Bonours book begns wh ceran wors; s rue ha oes an he has come o hs beef usng a reabe power Does hs beef sa sfy he ) cause n our efnon? Does see he ) cause hnk he answer o boh quesons s yes n efense of hese cams we can frs noce how a shf n persece from s sanpon o ours affecs he maer Unke who s a nae caroyan we can prouce an arume showng ha was correc n beeng ha page 10 begns wh ceran wors: s a reabe caroyan Ths was an occason on whch he eercse hs power n so on
easm
4
It ght b ttng to sa y that snc w can roc a jstfcatory argnt an cannot w know bt h osnt hs howr strks as sy an ntctast rjc that th a of nrcognz rcta chanss of rorcton was sos to cr Onc ths ntctast rjc s st as t bcos nt that jstfcatory rforancs co n aros fors Gn th kn of cratrs w ar thr ar crtan cas that can b jstf ony by argnts s a cas n ont consr th assrton Crtan fors of schzohrna ar assocat wth ocaton f on th han chrooso" o th qston How o yo know" w ght rc a ctaton to so athorty bt taty an assrton of ths kn co ony b known to b tr on th bass of an aborat c o f argntaton Coar ths wth th foowng a of a ffrnt kn of jstf rca bf s to to cos hr ys an ra Sh s thn ask to scrb th oston of hr boy an sh rs I a sttng own s sghty forwar wth both y ars an gs cross " not sr what soon wo say f ask How o yo know ths " ct rhas I a attnton to y boy" St ths rarks can b a thr rsonsby or rrsonsby It wo for a b rrsonsb for confnty to rort th oston of hr bs f as she ew, sh was bng trat wth a natrng rg In ths cas sh co rsonsby rort whr hr bs s to b bt not whr thy wr S o th ( ) cas s acab n to s an at rorts of rcton Frthror n th stanar cas th sncr rort of th sbjct that hr bs ar n a crtan oston s sffcnt to stabsh th tth of ths ca both for hr an for s tona facts can nrct th forc of sch a sncr aowa W ght know as osnt that sh has bn gn a natrng rg In ths crcstanc t s not stcay rrsonsb for hr to thnk hr gs ar cross thogh w gn or atona nforaton raz that hr sncr aowa os not stabsh th trth of ths ca So th ( ) cas as hr as w Frthror snc t s ossb for th ( ) an ( ) cass to tak ffrnt trth as t s asy to constrct a Gttr a n for ths s of rcta jgnt W n ony sos that has bn gn a rg that w ak h f (an hc thnk) that hr gs ar cross no attr what oston thy ar n h rntr asks hr th oston o f hr gs whn as t trns ot thy han to b cross an sh rorts
48
Pyhonan Reecons
ha hey are rsse Des she n hs ase kn ha her egs are rsse Of rse n hgh as he sry s she s esem ay resnsbe n beevng her egs be rsse he feeng an ngness beeve ha hey are rsse n esabsh ha hey are. seems hen ha jsfary erfrmanes me n a varey f frms rangng a he eremes frm hse ha nvve me ranan hse ha rey n he nrefeve se f a ere a er r aay Bh an be arre n a resnsbe r an rresnsbe manner; bh an esabsh r fa esabsh he rh f sme beef Bh are sres f knege Un reavey reeny hshers have fen ene hnk f knege as sey he r f neea avy. he eernass have mae an mran nrbn esemgy by breakng he se f hs neeas ree s e sha see eeasm n s vars frms has sers shrmngs b s rejen f neeas rees s n amng hem bakrak my earer remarks ere nene reae a resmn n favr f he frs hess annne a he begnnng f hs haer ernas heres ha are puy eernas are refe by nereames e vans f he ( ) ase. hnk Bnrsye nereames esabsh hs n. n he en hever hs s n a srng rsm sne eeas sns are easy mfe mee h mrmsng her en ra nnneeas (nnCaresan) re Nhng mre s neee han he rvsn ha n beeve ha he lacs he knege gvng er n qesn n erhas even ha rvsn s n neee f he beefs frme n he bass f hs er f n h an sr beefs erve frm her sres n nsn Bnrs rsms eey agans an eemas sn ny f he s rgh n sayng ha ar f ne's esem y s refe ray n ne's beefs an sh ra refen rees beevng hngs hh ne has nes knege n reabe means f esem aess" 42). Bn rs frh eamehe ne neng Nrmanas nene esabsh hs hess beeve have shn ha es n an as a res a enra nsgh f eeasmha knege an arse hrgh he nrefeve se f a erea aayhas been reserve
teasm
49
Goldman and Caual Thoi of Knwing t th had f ths chatr annncd thr thess h scnd rad r casa thrs f kndg fa bcas thy d nt catr th frc f th ( ) cas f th anayss ha r sd By a pure casa thry an n that rstrcts tsf t acual casa ratns and ds nt traffc n subucv atrnats thry f ths knd as dd by n Gdan n hs ary ssay Casa hry f Knng" sn s t n ths ssay bcas ts cntra da carrs dat ntt frc t cntans rtant nsghts that shd b rsd; and bynd ths sng (as Gdan hsf ca t s) hats rng th t s ang n th drctn f a sbnctst accnt f kndg Gdan targts Gttr's scnd a fr ctcs n ths a Sth jstfaby bs th fashd tht ns ns a rd and fr ths dras an nfrnc t th dsjnct rstn that ns ns a rd r Brn s n Barcna hs dsnct rstn ts t t b tr n rt f Brns bng n Barcna sthng that Sth has n rasn t b Cncrnng ths a Gdan nts as thrs had bf h that what makes [ie "ones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona true is the fact that Brown is in Barcelona but this fact has noth ing to do with Sith's believing That is there is n causal con nection between the fact that Brown is in Barcelona and Siths believing (68
h frst sntnc n ths assag sggsts a rnc that strks as bsy snd f th fact that aks p tr has nthng d th s bng t thn s bng that p ds n cnt as hs knng that hs rnc s nt artcary cnstranng and not cnstranng at a f thnk that any t thngs aays h somehi (hr rt) t d th n anthr Nt ng ry qcky Gdan cashs ths rnc n th rsct t a causal ratn h rasn accrdn t Gdan that Sth ds nt kn that p s bcas hs b that p s nt
50
Pynan Reens
slly ele o he f h mkes e h s Bowns beng n Belon B s Golmn seems o elze some kn of sl elon n be fon beween ny wo fs (o evens f yo efe, so fo Golmns sl eneng of P o be lsble, ms be se somehng lke hs P2 If he f h mkes p e s no slly ele n he rih sor of way o belevng , hen belevng h p oes no on s hs knowng h p 8 Ths nle wll be obve only f we e gven n eqe sefon of sos of sl elons h on s he rih sos The blk of Golmns e s n em o oven olne lesjs hs sefon. B I o no wn o go no hs js ye The on I o wn o mke s h Golmn's nlyss of hs paricular se long sl lnes skes me s essve. To see hs, we n onse smle se, no nvolvng Gee oblem, whee Smh, who lves n Deo, beleves h Bown s n Belon We wll fhe ssme h Smh s oe n hs belef. How mgh he ome by ? Pehs ws ommne o hm, sy by hone ll fom Bown Pehs he nfes hs bese some ele me Bown ol Smh h he Bown) ws gong o Belon We n of ose hnk of ohe wys h Smh mgh ome o hve hs belef b n ll hese ses we e elng wh sl onneons of sn kn. Fhemoe, gven he kn of belef n qeson, one oneng l emoe even o f, n gven he kn of ees we e, fo exmle, no eo gmme Lebnzn mons, s h o see how Smhs belef h Bown s n Belon ol be wne n he bsene of en sn sl elons onneng hs emoe f wh Smh's belef n . I hnk, hen, h he followng nle s e: P. Fo en lss of belefs ye o be sefe), f he f h mkes belef n h lss e s no slly ele n he rih sor of way o belevng , hen belevng oes no on s hs knowng Ths my son moe lke omssoy noe hn nle, b s, I hnk, on he gh k. Pehs n he flsh of yoh, Golmn hen wen on o mke m h I fn moe obem, even wh ese o hs l exmle {Alevely f ones own Fo n hs ownng he Fo ws mnfese by hs offe of e o Smh, n hs n esle n Smh's belevng hen we wol sy h Smh
easm
51
knew h ! 8) Hee he nelyng ncle seems o e some hng lke hs 4. Fo cen clss of elefs ye o e secfe f he fc h mkes elef n hs clss e s cslly ele n he rih sor of wy o s eleng hen s eleng cons s knowlege. Wh sos of elefs mgh ssfy 4? I seems o ly mos nlly o sme jgmens of eceon n memoy. Snce hey e oe comc hn hs emks o eceon Ill ce wh Golmn hs o sy o memoy. Fs he lys own necessy onon fo someones ememeng h reebers a ie t nly if s believing a an arlier ie is a cause f his believing a ie (0
I'm no se hs s coec ehs he s I h ecl exeence h no engene elef ecse I h wh I hogh o e goo esons fo hnkng h he exeence ws no ecl Le hs exeence comes ck o me wh he ele scle fogoen n hen fo he fs me I elee Ths seems o e cse of ememeng somehng no eosly elee The on ho ee een f coec s no mgng o Golmns genel ogm Ths sose necessy conon fo ememeng cnno see s sffcen conon fo s Golmn nes no eey csl connecon eween n ele elef n le one s cse of ememeng 70). I oes no ke exoc exmles o show hs ehs yes go I ecoe one of my elefs n y hen com leely fogo . I e hs eny no n elee wh sys Hee n ele elef h sns n csl elonsh o esen elef h no n elonsh h cons ememeng. xcly wh so of csl elon hen s sffcn fo emem eng? Golmn cnly ms h he cnno nswe hs qe on n el As in he case f percepin hwever shall n ry escribe his prcess in deail This is a b ainly fr he scienis nsead he kind f causal prcess in quesin is be idenifie siply by exaple by "pining paradig cases f reebring When eve causal prcesses are f ha kindwhaever ha kind is pre ciselyhey are cases f reebering ( 0 1
gmcse gmens e now o of syleI sose ecse ey wee oese hee les he con skes me
52
yhnian Reectins
ound Smle erceul elef nd mle elef dered from memory exemlfy he or of cul relonh h Goldmn h n mnd een f defe deque rereenon. In ny ce cul heore of knowng lke Goldmn he her mo nurl l con nd gn her nl nue luly wh reec o hee mle ce of erceon nd memory_ A gre del of our knowledge no of h (relely) mmed e knd We hnk we know mny hng h we do no now ercee or rememer. Adong rdonl ermnology Goldmn mrk h he dfference eween nferenl nd nonnferenl knowng Hng old cul ory ou nonnferenl emr cl) knowledge Goldmn em o exend he le y gng cul ccoun of nferenl knowledge well He nroduce h ledng de ung he followng exmle ercee h here oldfed l n rou r of he counryde On he of h elef lu rou ckground elef ou he roducon of l conclude h nery mounn erued mny cenure go Ung old lne o ndce cul relon e.g ol cno ewng l cro he counryde nd doed lne o nd ce nferenl relon e.g. lyng elhed geologcl rnc l o he oered fc) Goldmn dgrm he eemc uon hown
Here eem nurl o ek of cul/nferenl ccoun of emrcl knowledge u Goldmn wn o cll he enre chn cul chn He chee h y ulon f chn of nference dded o cul chn he enre chn cul Gen h ulon Goldmn cn hen y hu n fgure cue of elef of wheher or no we regrd elef of cue of h elef of " A he ery le h wy of ekng eem hghly rfcl for I do no hnk nyone would y h he mounn erng w cue (or one of he cue) of eleng h erued The cue of comng o hold h elef w ned rher comlex ece of cul reonng. e Goldmn em o reere h nl cul cure een when he nferenl comonen ecome he
a
53
mnant factr. hs cms t n hs tratmnt f th fng am. Ss th mntan s s aa r th ansca bt sm tm atr smn rms t. Latr st anthr rsn crs th ansca th aa s that t ks as f th mntan ha s aa r th ansca n ths cas accrng t Gman s nt kn that a can ha rt cntrs ag bcas th fact that th mntan rt s nt a cas f s bele ha eruped" 72, mhass a) Sry ths s a car ay t scrb th statn fr t sm mch mr natra t frgt abt 's astc stats an say that snt kn that th mn tan rt cntrs ag bcas hs rasnng cncng th src f th aa has t t t b n g. rythng s han qt natray by an acatn f hat ha ca th ( ) cas. n fact a f ags atr Gman's anayss bgns t m n th rctn f ntrcng a ( ) cas. Dscssng anthr am hs tas n nt cncrn s h rmarks s n th aa cas kns p bcas h has correcly recosruced th casa chan ang frm p t th nc fr p that rcs 74 mhass a). Ntc tat h a rfrnc t a casa accnt f s belef has smy r t s sa t kn bcas h has rc an accrat rcnstrctn f th casa sqnc ang frm th rtn f th mntan cntrs ag t th rsnt s rsa f aa acrss th ansca t ths nt th mhass stchs t th gtmacy f th casa rcnstrctn: f [] i t knw hi rentrutin mut ntain n mitake Thugh he need nt rentrut ever detail f the aual hain he mut rentrut all the imprtant link An additinal require ment f knwledge baed n inferene i that the knwer infer ene be warranted That i, the prpitin n whih he bae hi belief f mut genuinely nfirm very highly whether dedu tively r indutively Rentruting a aual hain merely by luky guee de nt yield knwledge (75)
t n sms that Gmans stn has nrgn a fna mnta chang. Whr h frst t s () kns that p ny f stans n th rght srt f casa ra tnsh t th fact that p h n sms t b tng s that fr crtan cass at ast ) kns that ny f can srt hs bf that p th th rght srt f casa rcnstrctn.
54
Pyhnan Reens
Tht these e vey dffeent ostons s cle ecuse the fst con dton would not ds nmls fom ossessng knowledge, whees the second condton esumly would Let me sto hee nd dw nume of tenttve conclusons conceng cusl cteon of knowledge I Settng sde the mno olem noted ove, the cusl cte on of knowledge does seem to ly down ecessary condton fo cetn knds of knowledge, nd n vtue of ths ovdes wy of solvng Gette's ognl olems II But even n those cses whee the cusl cteon fnds ts most ntul lcton e, wth memoy nd soclled mme dte eceton, Bonou exmles show tht t does not o vde suffcent condton fo knowledge III Goldmn's cusl cteon fo knowng ecomes moe nd moe ttenuted s the knowledge n queston ecomes comlexly nfeentl In fct, fo comlex nfeentl knowledge Goldmn ndons hs uely extenlst stndont n fvo of mxed extenlst/ntenlst oston Unde essue, the theoy s slowly tuned outsde n et fo ll these dffcultes, thee stll mght e somethng motnty ght out cusl ccount of knowng, t lest n the egon of ts dgmtc lcton nonnfeent judgments of eceton nd memoy Ths, s Goldmn cme to see, s wong, fo even n the e of ts dgmtc lcton, cusl theoy wll not ovde us wth suffcent condton fo knowng
Th Mov o h ubjunciv At the egnnng of Dscmnton nd ecetul Knowledge," 4 Goldmn's second mjo effot to gve n ccount of ecetul knowledge, he tells us Lke n ele theoy I oosed the envs ged theoy would seek to exlcte the concet of knowledge y ef eence to the cusl ocesses tht oduce (o sustn) elef Unlke the ele theoy howeve, t would ndon the equement tht knowe's elef tht e cuslly connected wth the fct, o stte of ffs tht ( 20). ehs I m wong, ut I do not thnk ths ssge ccutely sttes the eltonsh etween Goldmns og n ccount s he esented t n A usl Theoy of Knowng, nd the new, elle cusl ocess theoy he develos n ths essy In tcul n the vey broad sense n whch Goldmn uses the noton of cusl connecton (o cusl chn) n the ognl tcle,
Eeasm
55
do not thn he abandon the equement that a nowe belef that be aually onneted wth the fat o tate of affa that " thn he tll, tatly at leat, aept th a a neeay ondton fo peeptual nowledge and then goe on to tengthen t n epone to poblem he had not noted befoe Along the way Goldman offe a numbe of example ntended to how that the eale mple, aual theory wll not do but th Category ae of famle ban eve a h ental example n boad outlne, Goldman popoe to olve th poblem along the fol lowng lne What then, my popoed teatment of the ba example? A peon now that ugget, only f the atual tate of affa n whh true disiuishable o discrimiable by hm fom a elevant tate of affa n whh fale . So, one we ae apped of the famle n the dtt we ae nlned to deny that Henry now 24 Put rudely aodng to Goldman we ae not nlned to ay that S now that thee a ba befoe hm fo he would have fomed peely the ame belef, though now falely had he been loong at one of the famle ba. Fo thoe who fnd th ba example poblemat let me te anothe example that te me a beng ompletely deve t ome fom Fed Dete and one Goldman lava example N far fr M s anher unan The gegy f he area s such ha a he pn n e a whch M eruped sehng s spea was bund gve f M had n eruped N wud have Fur herre he can f N s such ha f raher han M had eruped he presen dsrbun f ava wud have been n a respecs reevan s ang as a reasn fr beevng ha M eruped he sae n appas and Swan 46
Hee, even though the geologt belef that M erupted tand n what Goldman eale deemed the ght ot of aual elaton to the erupton of M the geologt annot be ad to now that M eupted beaue he would have beleved the very ame thng f t had been N that eupted ntead Refleton of th nd led Goldman to a new pmtve nght ntended to eplae o at leat upplement h eale pmtve nght that doe not now omethng when thee no aual on neton between the fat he am to now and h nowng t Set tng ade ubtete the ontat between the two poton ome to th Old nght f te fat that dd not aue S to beleve that then n belevng that doe not now that
56
Pynan Reecns
ew Inght If would have beleved that even f were fale, then n belevng that dd not know that he old nght provded a way of avodng what I have called Cate gory I Getter counterexample, for example, the Getter orgnal It dd not provde a way of elmnatng Category II counterexample, for example, the fake ba he new nght pecfcally ntended to overcome th problem he key dfference here that the new crteron explctly cat n the ubjunctve mode, a fact gven promnence by Goldman when he remark The theory of knowledge I envage, then, would con tan an mportant counterfactual element 0 A far a I can ee, what I have labeled Goldman ew Inght, f correct, would hold qute generally for nferental a well a non nferental knowledgendeed, for nonemprcal a well a emprcal knowledge, but Goldman retrct h dcuon to nonnferental perceptual knowledge Informally, he tate h bac poton n thee word What our analy ay that ha nonnferental perceptual knowledge f and only f not only doe h perceptual mechanm produce true belef, but there are no relevant counter factual tuaton n whch the ame belef would be produced va an equvalent percept and n whch the belef wll be fle ( 39 A Goldman ee� t, two thng here demand careful explanaton the noton of an qual percept and the noton of a la coun terfactual tuaton. But even though Goldman hmelf pend a great deal of tme explanng the noton of perceptual equvalence, I propoe to concentrate on what he ay about relevant counterfac tual tuaton. Gong back to the ba facmle cae, Goldman remark The preence of the facmle doe not create the poblty that the object Harry ee a facmle Even f there were no facmle n the dtrct, t would be poble that the object on that te a fac mle What the preence of the facmle doe make the po blty la; or t make u cod t relevant" ( 4 In common parlance, we mght ay tha the preence of facmle make t a al poblty that the object Harry ee a facmle We want to know, then, what make a counterfactual tuaton a relevant or real poblty, and n tryng to anwer th queton, we encounter a charactertc phloophcal problem Specfcaton at the extreme are unatfactory, and there eem to be no obvou way of producng a atfactory pecfcaton between thee extreme Goldman note one de of th problem If knowledge requred the emnaton of a locally pol aternatve there
Eesm
5
wold be no nowledge at least of ontngent trths " ( 242 On the other sde, f the range of alteatve sbjntve possbltes s narrowly restrted, say to those ases where the alteatve sta ton s exatly ale n every respet to the orgnal staton, then Goldmans new rerement beomes empty, plang no frther onterfatal restrtons on what wll ont as pereptal nowl edge than hs orgnal asal aont dd. How does Goldman deal wth ths problem n spefyng rele vant alteatves? he short answer s he doesnt. After refletng at large on reent lteratre n the feld, he says, shall not try to set tle the eston of whether the semant ontent of now ontans rles that map the ptatve nowers staton nto a ne set of relevant alternatves leave open the eston of whether there s a orret set of relevant alteatves, and f so, what t s" (28 Why doesnt ths admsson, so anddly made, smply tae the stffng ot of Goldmans enterprse? Why snt he more worred abot ths? Heres what Goldman says n defending y analye f "peceptually nw hweve hall have t dicu paticula exaple n teatng thee exaple hall aue e (pychlgical egulaitie cncening the elec tin f alenative. Ang thee egulaitie i the fact that pea e d nt odnay thin f "adical altenative and tae the euly if the putative nwe' cicutance d nt call atten tin t the 128
By radal" alteatves, Goldman has n mnd sh thngs as the Cartesan hypothess of a deevng demon, or Rssellan spela ton that the world ame nto exstene fve mntes ago wth mem ores, geologal strata, and so forth, all n plae n fat, however, n dsssng partlar examples, Goldmans assptons go beyond braetng radal" alteatves he also braets remote and not so remote) alteatves ormally t does not ross or mnds to wonder whether a ba before s mght be a fasmle ba, yet ths possblty s not radal n the sense n whh the Cartesan demon and the Rssellan reaton present rad al alternatves Frst, the possblty of a fasmle ba s straght forwardly realable We old atally bld sh bas, perhaps wth the ad of a grant from the atonal Endowment for the Arts More mportantly, the fasmlebas hypothess s not globally ds loatng n the way n whh the Cartesan and Rssellan hypothe ses are here are straghtforward ways of dedng whether a ba s a fasmle ba yo loo arond the ba or try to get nsde he dstntve featre of the Cartesan and Rssellan hypotheses
yhoa lctos
58
whethe ths unts s stength wenesss tht ll suh stndd pedues heng e themselves lled nt questn On Gldmns unt nnt be sd t nw tht eg, tht thee s b n nt hm beuse he would hve beleved ths had elevnt untetul stutn btned whee s lse .e, thee wee smle b bee hm Gldmns puzzle s why we n unt ths s esn syng tht n lnd n tnng smle bns des nt nw whees n nml umstnes the pedue he used e. lng ut hs wndw wuld gve hm nwledge Gldmns nswe s tht veled elevnt untetul ltentve e tht thee s Ptemn b n nt hm But, t s the mst bvus questn, why s the smle b pssblty elevnt The nswe s tht we nw tht thee e suh bns n the vnty sne we hve been tld ths n the settngup the exmple. Futheme, we elze tht the exstene undeuts s nmlly esnble gunds by sng the level sutny needed t m wnted peeptul beles Thus we expln why etn untetul ltetve s elevnt by pntng ut hw etn ts be n the wnt pesns gunds pvde etn ppstn ths s ghtnd shll gue ths n detl n the next hptethen n syng tht pu usl thees n be euted by n ppel t untetul nsdetns we e mpltly nwledgng tht they l thugh vltns the epstemppslluse the nlyss nwledge. Ths ws the send thess stted t the begnnng ths hpte II Pue usl thees nwledge l beuse they d nt p tue the e the ( luse the nlyss hve ppsed Hweve, s the gument hs develped ths thess ws mde t depend n nthe I Subuntve thees gn the plusblty pesely beuse the subjuntve nstnts they ntdue e guded by tt eptne the luse nd e thus ppxmtns t I wll deend ths thess n the next hpte
No D Arsrng apures he nal nve plausbly f hs apprah sng he causal eaphr f a reable nsruen n parlar
Ealism
59
a relable hereer A relable hereer ndcaes ha he epera re s say 986° becase ha s wha he eperare s he eperares beng 986° cases he hereer ndcae hs (See Arsrng 1 96 1 2. Acally BnJr s re narrwly cncerned wh accns f eprcal usiicaio, b as he hself nes a vars pns hs cn erexaples apply eqally agans exernals analyses f kowld. 3 BnJr 1985 4 Nr wld ae any dfference f s seclarvyan readng f BnJrs argens ally cnvnced h ha Nran ddn nw. . re careflly we shld add he qalfcan "r sehng ver clse s grnds becase f cases where we accep s grnds as esab lshng se cnclsn b d s nly afer vndcang hs argen n e face f se bjecn. 6 Gldan 1 967 Reprned n appas and Swan 1 978. age refer ences are he laer srce. 7. n exres we can race r cla race a casal cnnecn bac he Bg Bang r we can cnsrc cncepally barre casal relans n he syle f Nelsn Gdan. 8. shd be ned ha Gldan fr he sar resrcs hs ds cssn eprcal nwledge rearng hn ha he radnal analyss s adeqae fr nwledge f nneprcal rhs 67. 9. he w cases exeplfy he w paerns f casal relans ha Gldan explres Rghly n he frs paern s belevng ha has he fac ha as a casal ancesr n he secnd paern s beevng ha and he fac ha share a cn casal ancesr. 10 4 nle he prevs prncples lays dwn a suici cndn fr nwledge and herefre s sbjec BnJr cnerexaples erhaps alng wh hs snd belef ha Jnes wns a rd frher beleves js fably r n her hngs ncpable wh . n cases f hs nd Bn Jr wld arge ha Sh des n nw and as ndcaed befre hn he s rgh n hs As a nd n he drecn f hs prble we can add a dy clase 4 5 r a ceran class f belefs ye be specfed f he fac ha aes a belef n hs class re s casally relaed n he rgh sr f way s belevng hen s belevng des cn as hs nwng prvded ha des n beleve her hngs ncpable wh hs belevng Wh hs sad BnJr prbles are qaranned nl frher nce 1 1 Beynd hs 5 als apples belefs fred fr nfran c ncaed s 12 Here Gldan ces H Grce's pran arcle The Casal The f ercepn Grce 1961. 13 any have arged ha even he sples acs f percepn are nferenal 'l re hs pc n ar f hs sdy.
60
Pyhonan ctons
4 Gldan 9 76 age references are appas and Swan 978 In hs laer case I a hnng fr exaple f aheacal nwledge Suppse ha uses a prf prcedure ha deernes here hd n he bass f he nuber f wrds n he here Les suppse ha usng hs ehd he yhagrean here s declared rue Here we wll n say ha has shwn ha he yhagrean here s rue fr he wuld have declared rue even f happened be false Se hn here s a pule here snce he yhagrean here beng a necessary ruh cann pssbly be false Ive never undersd he frce f hs pule snce have n dffculy n agnng ha a senence r a saeen used n ang a senence gh express sehng false even hugh n fac expresses sehng necessarly rue Led a hs way, we are n cnfrned wh he as f ryng cnceve f sehng nec essarly rue beng pssbly false Bu I dgress
4 Subjunctivism and Subjunctivitis
Conuiv Raon I the prevou hapter I examed the way whh Goldma pure aual theory evolved to a aual/ubjutve theory. I further tated wthout argumet that the ubjutve ompoet ga t plaublty through beg guded by what I have alled the laue he burde of th hapter to provde a argumet for th lam But tead of followg the developmet of Goldma thought further, I wll beg by examg a tatemet of the ub utvt poto a pure ad relatvely mple form a t foud red Dretke remarkably fe artle Coluve Reao " Dretke tate the broad the of th eay thee word: thos ss wh kowldg tht sts o vid gouds o sos d wh th qustio How dos kow ssi bly b skd d swd th vid gouds o sos must b olusiv Aythig shot of olusiv sos though it my povid o with ustifid tu blifs fils to giv th kid of sup pot quisit to kowldg shll lso ug tht th possssio of olusiv sos to bliv poply qulifid is lso suffiit oditio fo kowldg (12
Dretke the gve two haraterato o f a oluve reao At the head of h eay he ue explt modal termology: ttig th symbol pst th ppopt modlity ytto bliid ss o p shll sy th tht R is o lusiv so fo if d oly i giv (o lttivly R \
61
yhnan Reectn
62
Moe mpotant fo ou puposes he aso uses a subuntve onstuton to haateze onusve easons R [s a cnclse reasn fr P f and nly f wld nt be the case nless were the case 2
Ths sad we an summae the fundamenta featues of Detskes poston n tems of the nteeatonshps among the thee foowng fomuas 1 knows that P and he nows ths on the bass smpy of R a2 R s a onusve eason fo P 2 R woud not be the ase uness P wee the ase 1 Athough Detse does not expty pesent hs poston n ths way wth espet to these fomuas he s eay ommtted to the foowng thee theses
I One annot onsstenty affm an nstantaton of 1 and deny the oespondng nstantaton of a2 That s f knows that P and he nows ths on the bass smpy of R, then R s a onusve eason o P]
II. One annot onsstenty affm an nstantaton of and deny the oespondng nstantaton of 2 That s f knows that P and he nows ths on the bass smpy of R then R woud not be the ase uness wee the ase Fo Detske, thess I and thess II ae eated by a stong thess aeady mentoned
III R s a onusve eason fo f and ony f R woud not be the ase uness P wee the ase By speadng thngs out ths way I an summae my evauaton of Detses poston as foows Thess I s a vaant of my ause and s tue Thess II foows fom thess I and so s aso tue The appea to the subjuntve fo the anayss o eudaon of onusve easons fas beause thess III s eay fase Detse attempts to estabsh the ntutve pausbty of thess II usng a sees of exampes The fst and eadng exampe has the foowng fom Suppose the foowng nstantaton of 1 ) s tue a knows that hs hds tmpatu s noma and he knows ths on the bass of the noma eadng on the themomete whh he has paed n the hds mouth et
ncvsm and ;ncvs
63
H n k wr on cn conny ffrm () nd dny corrpondng nnon of ()? (2 Th hmom would o hv d 986 ulss h hld's mpu ws oml (2
Drk xpc ng nwr o qon o forc of mc of rgmn w cn condr mkn ocon o omon mg compln rmomr mg rd 98.6 n f cld mprr w no normprp w dfc rmomr on wy rd 98.6. Drk I nk y om qonl ng concng xmpl mc rk m cr. If n n cl c w good ron for pcng rly of rmomr nd for ron rf o ccp () n for that ery same reaso w wl rf o ccp ) pon of II wc rk m ng prfcy corrc Bfor xmnng dffcl nd n pro pr grp w cn xmn rgforwrd wy n wc pproc ndl Gr prom In ordr o g ppcon noon of conc ron m rzd o pron hai m or prp r commadi m Drk mp ng folowng formlon of ncry nd ffcn condon for ng conc ron Of ous R my olusv so fo blvg whou yo bvg muh lss hvg R s h [s so fo blvg shll sy hfo h has a cncsv rasn R fo blvg f d oly f A R s olusv so fo ( blvs whou doub svo o quso h s h s d h blvs hs o h bss of R (C) ( kows h R s h s o () R s som pml s of (bou whh my o mk ss o suppos h kns h R s h s ls o log mks muh ss o sk h h kows) ( 1 213)
Gn pcfcon of ng conc ron R for P olon o cgory I Gr prom fl o onc I w crcrc of o xmpl cod fd n lng P on of R og P w fase T no po l on Drk ny nc poon of conc r on for P prcd poy P f Tog ck
yrrhonian Reection
64
wy n foonoe Deke excy ee ny o e ogn Gee obem i hi rongr onnion whih blok h or of ounr ampl whih an b gnra o juifirublif analy of knowlg ir' an hrr' ampl for inan ar ir a ho analy whih onru knowlg in rm of a deree of juifiaion whih i ompaibl wih bing juifi in bliving omhing fal On h prn analyi of our, h rquir onnion bwn vin an i rong nough o pecude bing fal On anno hav conclue ra on for bliving omhing whih i fal 3n)
I nk e fn enence n ge coec In fc oug I dew no concuon egdng e Gee obem I mde m cm numbe of ye befoe Deke ce eed In dn and Manng4 I offeed e foowng cem f oxmon fo e ny of knowng X po aua groun for 60
onng w e oon deveoed by Com I emked en Com ue e e deque evdence e doe no nend n e ong ene ooon [mu be] ue f ee deque evdence fo ee cn be deque evdence fo fe ooon (6) Ove gn I ed If omeone oee deque gound vbe fo ome eon en ee a deque gound vbe fo eon nd fom foow e eon ue (6) u I ued my noon of deque gound n e me ong ene Deke ued noon of concuve eon Fo eon bo oon e mmune o Gee ogn couneexme oug unke Deke I dd no ve e w o noe o foonoe . e e of geemen beween Deke en) nd me (en) con n cceng w I ee ced e I If know nd e know on e b my) of R
en R concuve eon fo Bu Deke nk mon o defend e ubuncve coune of e 1 I ve beed e II II. If know nd e know on e b my) of R en R woud no be e ce une wee e ce. I nk Deke efe ubuncve veon of oon becue eem o gve n ccoun o exnon of w fo
Sjncvm and Sncv
65
smethin t be a cnclusive reasn I think this is wrn. ut befre ressin this criticism we can examine sme f the strenths f the cnclusivereasn arach fr the will be wrth reservin even if the subjunctive analsis f cnclusive reasns must be rejecte We can nte first that Dretskes analsis allws us t attribute a cnclusive reasn R t withut cmmittin urselves t sain that knws r even believes that R is a cnclusive reasn. As a result we can attribute knwlee t animals (as we ften ) withut imlausibl attributin t them shisticate knwlee r beliefs abou cnclusive reasns. A similar int can be mae cncernin human ercetual knwlee en this Dretskes analsis blcks a ceran frm f sketicism Sketics are ften icture as reasnin in the fllwin wa It is ssible that I am nw reamin. If I am reamin I cannt knw that there is a table befre me n the basis f m resent exerience since when reamin I miht have the same exerience withut there bein a table befre me. ut (let's sa) I nt have cnclusive reasns fr believin that I am nt reamin Therefre I nt knw that there is a table befre me T his creit Dretske es nt at an f the facile resnses cmmn at the time he wrte "nclusive easns." e es nt lace the blame n the sketics accusin them f "settin artifi ciall hih stanas fr knwlee" ( 19). e es nt aeal t sme versin f verificatinism in an effrt t eclare the sketics ubt meainless. e es nt eml blunt araimcase aruments. Instea he siml ints ut that it is ssible n his anal sis t knw that (there is a table befre me) n the basis f R (m resent visual exerience) withut knwin A (that R is a cnclusive reasn fr . As Dretske uts it One qualifies fr knwlee when ne has cnclusive reasns fr believin ne nee nt in aitin knw that ne has cnclusive runs" ( 7) S if the sketi claims that certain raical ssibilities shw that we can nt knw sa that there is a table in frnt f us Dretske can rel even rantin that these raical ssibiities cannt be excue that for a we
know we do know such hins I think this is crrect an brilliant ut it is imrtant t nte that this arument has n frce aainst mst frms f traitina hilshical sketicism Sextus Emiricus fr examle is willin
rrhnian Reectns
66
t amit that f a we knw we ma knw a eat eal sa abut the extenal w e thinks that this aissin istinuishes Phnian skepticism fm Acaemic skepticism which he eects as a fm f neative matism The Phnian is cntent t pint ut that cetain aical pssibilities shw that f all we knw we knw anthin avin appise thes f these aical pssibilities an the cnseuences that flw fm them he then challenes thes t ustif thei cntinue use f knwlee claims The espnse Well f all we knw we knw" es nt meet this challene In fact Detske neve claims that his anasis f nwlee has fce aainst taitinal skeptical auments but still it is imptant t see that it es nt ee hweve I am teain n mattes that will be iscusse in me etail late in this chapte
ubjuncivim Ealie I aske wh Detske pefee t expess his psitin in tems f thesis I II If knws that an he knws this n the basis simpl f R then R wul nt be the case unless wee the case athe than in tems f thesis I f knws that an he knws this n the basis simpl f R then R is a cnclusive easn f What is the pint f this shift int the subunctive? The subunctive fmulatin is nt neee f the eivatin f the antiskeptical cn seuences f Detskes analsis f the flw iectl fm the fact that can have R as a cnclusive easn f withut knwin this even believin it As fa as I can see the appeas t the subunc tive n wk that cul nt have been ne iectl b the cncept f a cnclusive easn If this is iht subunctive cnitinals will hnest wk in this cntext nl if the hep eluciate the ntin f a cnclusive easn M wn view is that subunctive cnitinas nt hep us unestan cnclusive easns an eivative knwlee f the illuminatin expeience ccus in the the iectin u ntin f cnclusive easns is neee t place cnstaints n tuth cnitins f subjunctive cnitinals ist I will tr t make this pint with espect t Detskes infmal iscussin in nclu sive Reasns" ate I will make it aain with espect t pssiblewls accunts f subunctive cnitinals
ncvsm and ncvs
6
As alrea nte we av etters rnal cunterexamles an sme f ther near kn) f we r the stanar weak justfca tn clause n the efntn f knwlee an relace t wth the fllwn: ) has cnclusve reasns R fr r alteatvel fr Dretske ) has a reasn R fr such that R wul nt be true unless were true It seems that an analss f knwn enerate b usn ether f these clauses wll be subject t nur cunterexamles Mrever as Dretske hmself realze an analss reln n the ( ) clause seems t be subject t what I have calle cater II cun terexamles namel thse that nvlve estemc luck As a vara tn n Dretskes rnal examle suse that tk the thermmeter frm a bx f thermmeters that were ben scare because the manufacturer ha wrtten san the were efectve n fact all the thermmeters were efectve excet fr the ne chsen b t was n erfect wrkn rer In ths case t s true that the thermmeter wul nt have restere 986 unless the chls temerature were nrmal et we seem unwlln t sa that n the bass f rean the thermmeter ha a cnclusve reasn fr belevn that Snce lacks a cnclusve reasn fr hs belef we wll als en that he knws that the chls temerature was nr mal Ths examle seems t rve a wee between Dretskes sub junctve clause an hs cnclusvereasn clause whch n hs arach shul cme t the same thn Mr t the nt the cn clusvereasn clause survves ths cunterexamle whereas ts sub unctve cunterart es nt One resnse t ths ffcultan n a wa t s erfectl crrects t sa that the cunterexamle eens n an narrate escrtn f what n cmn t the cnclusn that hs chl's temerature s nrmal What he as the str tells us s t reach nt a bx cntann thermmeters all but ne f whch were fault Then t s nt true that a thermmeter selecte n ths wa wul nt have rea 986° unless the chls temerature were nr mal Thus f we et the escrtn rht the rse cunterex amle seeml fals Dretske attemts t cature the frce f these reflectns n the fllwn statement: When ne has cnclusve reasns then ths s suffcent fr knwn that s the case when thse reasns are proply pcfc bth wth rear t ha
68
f
ha isas he aicua eaues n which ne eies and he aicua eaues hemseves" u his miicain he nluan cause is n esnsive he bem a han n becin has been un he cncusiveeasn anasis an heee i sans in nee n miicain I seems ha in he hemmee exame jus iven i nt have cncusive easns beievin ha his chis emeaue was nma even huh i was ue ha he hemmee wu n have ea 98.6° uness he chis emeaue was nma I his is ih we n nee a quaiicain n he cncusiveeasn cause wha is neee insea is a quaiicain n he subjuncive cause e i back in ainmen wih he cn cusiveeasn cause Taein he subjuncive cause ahe han he cncusiveeasn cause wu ie he win esu I has a easn R such ha R wu n be ue uness wee ue hen his is suicien knwin ha is he case when hse easns ae ppy spf bh wih ea hat t ha isas he aicua eaues n which ne eies and he aicua eaues hemseves The bem is in sme wemivae basis eeminin when easns ae e seciic an his amuns inin a wemivae basis seecin he esciins be use in he muain he aiae subuncive cniina (The seciic hemmee use b wu n have ea 98.6 uness he chis emeaue wee nma bu a hemmee aken m ha a icua bx mih have e 98 6 even huh he chis emeaue was n nma I n hink Deskes emaks abu subjuncive cniinas as he aea in Cncusive easns" vie an aequae wa eeminin which esciin is ee van aiae. Fuheme as I sha aue ae I n hink scae ssibews semanics wi vie an he in his mae eihe In enea i es n seem ssibe exicae he nin a eevan esciin in ems he uh subuncive cniinas since hei uh seems awas een n an aneceen seciicain wha nsieains ae alld t b eevan As he sr is i es seem cea ha es n knw ha hs chis emeraue is nma. Whee es his inuiin cme m? T eu a heme sesse in evius chaes u cea ecisins n hese quesins ae eive m u iviee siin eaive he s We knw (b ia ha a he hermme
;nctvm and ;nctvts
69
ters in the bx save ne are fault We see at nce that this is a relevant cnsieratin because we see using cmmnsense cnsieratins hw this bears n the legitimac r warrant f measuremens mae using thermmeters s chsen. urthermre we nt have t l thrugh a subjunctive cnitinal in rer t gain this insight althugh nw that we see that s gruns fr believing that his chils temerature was nrmal were nt warrante the cntext has been sufficientl fixe t allw us t en the subjunctive cnitinal: A thermmeter selecte in the wa that selecte it nee nt have rea 986° unless the chils temerature were nrmal ut t suggest that s lack f cnclusive reasns an hence his lack knwlege is smehw exlicate in terms f the falseh f this subjunctive cnitinal gets things backwarr at least assigns a ririt where nne has been shwn t exist. A eeer rblem with Dretskes subjunctive analsis was inte ut t me b Dretske himself. The cunterexamle cmes frm amn Martin Suppos tht buys tickt t locl hos tck Th tickt is such tht if picks th wi i th fist c o th wi i th scod c o both wis othwis loss picks umsho to wi th fist c d Tglog to wi th scod Bfo th fist c bgis is clld wy fom th tck d dos ot tu util th d of th scod c Whil is wy umsho wis th fist c d Tglog fiishs lst i th scod O tuig to th tck d still ot kowig th sults of ith c gos to th cshis widow d psts his tickt Without spkig wod th cshi gis twty dolls i chg fo 's tickt (21516
In this case given that Tagalng ha lst wul nt have receive the twent llars at the time he cllecte it unless umshe ha wn but still at the time he receive it his receiving twent llars was nt a cnclusive reasn fr his hling that umshe ha wn This argument strikes me as cmletel ecisive. Since an aeal t rer secificit es nt seem t hel here the cunterexamle seems fatal t the subjunctivist sitin Dretske evele in Cn clusve easns." t is eas enugh t see what haens in this examle iven that we knw that Tagalng lst the secn race we can see that wul nt have wn anthing unless umshe ha wn the first rm ur ersective we can als see that winning twent llars
yhonian Reectons
0
n his bet i nt pvie with a cncusive easn f beievin that umshe wn even thuh it is tue that if umshe ha nt wn then wu nt have wn twent as One f the eain ieas f an extenaist accunt f knwee is that a pesn ma have a cncusive easn f beievin smethin withut havin the backun infmatin in vitue f which it can be seen t be a cn cusive easn This ma be a easnabe psitin with espect t sme fms f knwee pehaps knwee base n immeiate peceptin mem but the psitin ses its pausibiit when it is extene t incue knwee base n easnin. Since in Matins exampe was absent fm the tack an was nt escibe as bein a caivant he cu n have knwn that umshe ha wn thuh a piece f easnin base n the winnins he eceive. Since this infmatin i nt pvie aequate uns f believin that umshe ha wn an ben this since easne quite ba iven the infmatin he i pssess i nt knw. m this we ma cncue that thesis III
R is a cncusive easn f if an n if R wu nt be the case uness wee the case thuh it hs fm eft iht es nt h fm iht t eft The caim that smethin is a cncusive easn wi uaantee the tuth f a cuntepat subunctive cnitina but nt cnvese
ubjuncivii Une this tenentius tite I wi examine the ntin that scae pssibews semantics can pa a cucia e in the expicatin f knwee caims. In paticua I wi examine accunts f knwee that bein as Detske's i b intucin subjunctive cnitinas int the anasis f epistemic statements an next use pssibews semantics t estabish tuh cnitins f these ubunctive nitinas his think is a subtefue shw this cncentate n sme thins Rbet Nick has sai Nzicks accunt f knwee is initiate b a specific iansis f ettie pbems It is then iven an shape b a specific phisphic a the efutatin f what he takes t be a ban f skepticism. e beins in a stana wa b annuncin Our as s fuae furer cndns g alngsde s ue 2 beleves a 2
jnctm and jnctt
1
r im these cnitins shul be iniviual necessar fr knwlee an jint sufficient. The first mve is t a a cause that will ea with ettier rb ems an t this en Nzick recnizes as thers ha befre him that in ettier's secn examle the fllwin is te f : If n ne in the ffice wns a r wul stil beieve smene i. ecause this is true f it strikes Nzick as intuitivel bvius that es nt knw that smene in his ffice wns a r ( 1 73) . S it seems that a crect accunt f knwlee uht t cntain a cause that enies r imies the enial f) the ccurrence f a situatin f this kin. Nzick first suests that the fllwin cause meets this eman 3 f w' u, would bliv h ( 1 72
Nzick next ntes that the cnjunctin f this aitinal clause with the riinal tw causes es nt rule ut ever rbem case. In articuar Th mi h of h po i h k who i bough o bliv by di lil d hmil imulio of hi bi h h i i h k d big bough o bliv hig i hi wy h do o kow hi i u Howv, h ubuiv o diio i ifid if h w foig i h k h would bliv h w 75)
Nzick ianses this exame in the fllwin wa: Th po i h k do o k ow h i h bu hi blif i o iiv o h uh Alhough i i ud by h f h i i o i i o iiv o h f Th opo ould hv podud y blif iludig h fl blif h h w i h k if hy hd h would hv blivd h f i iviy would ivolv blif d f vyig ogh Thu h ubuiv odiio o = o bliv h ) ll u oly hlf h oy bou how hi blif i iv o h uhvlu of ll u how hi blif i iiv o fl iy bu o how i i iiv o uh; Thi ddiiol iviy i giv o u by fuh ubu iv if w u, h would bliv i (4 bliv h 75-76
uh Nzick's furth cause is the subjunctive cunteart f the eman fun in causa theries f knwee that the causa cn nectin between the beief an the fact beieve be f the riht kin
2
yrnin Reectins
Nick cnclus this xpsitin b stipulatin that h will sa f a prsn wh blivs that p which is tru that whn 3 an 4 hl his blif t th truth" 178 Th ntin f trackin th truth s spcifi i s Nicks primitiv insiht cncin knwl Knwl is tru blif that tracks th truth ut as Nick nts at nc th cnitins lai wn in this simpl thr ar t strn T s wh it is sufficint t cit ust n f Nicks xampls A ranmthr ss hr ransn is wll whn h cms t visit but if h wr sick r a [an i nt cm t visit] thrs wul tll hr h was wll t spar hr upst Yt this s nt man sh snt knw h is wll r at last ambulatr whn sh ss him" 1 79 Quit clarl this xampl shws a fct in Nick's thir claus fr th ranmthrs mth f cmin t knw that th chil is wll was lts sa prfctl rliabl an it sms quit bsi th pint that if sh ha nt ha th pprtunit t mpl this rliabl mth sh wul hav falln back n anthr mth listnin t th rprts f slicitus frins that wul in fact b unrliabl Nik cnclus that w must rstat ur cnitins t tak int accunt th was an mths f arrivin at blifs" 1 79 Rlativiin his psitin t mths in th riht srt f wa is an ssntial aspct f Nick's psitin fr as w hav ust sn in th xampl f th sharp but ullibl ranmthr ithut such a rlativiatin th analsis can asil b shwn t fail In fact whn w t int th tails f this iscussin an xamin cm ptin mths an availabl but unus mths th issus bcm xtrml cmplicat ut fr ur prsnt purpss w nt hav t xamin ths rfinmntsr piccls" as Nick calls thmsinc ur main cncrn will b with Nics appal t subunctiv cnitinals an pssiblwrls smantics an th ntral pints can b ma withut rachin th mr rfin mthrlativi vrsin f his analsis
ubjunciv Condiional and Poibl Wod On Nick's accut th truth f a knwl claim pns n th truth f tw subunctiv cnitinals w thn w trmin th truth f a subunctiv cnitinal? Nick sas littl n this an th littl h s sa is altthr amain t his caus tat simpl th ifficult with subunctiv cnitinals spciall cntrartfact cnitinalsis that thr sms t b n
jncvm and jnctv
73
nonabiay wa f ecn whether the are true r false r erhas netermnate n ther truth values xamles llustratn ths have been n the lterature fr a ln tme A vv ne frm Qune wll serve ur urses: f zet an Ver ha been cmatrts wul zet have been talan Ver rench r what " t seems lan n ts face that ths questn cannt be answere wthut an arbtrar stulatn cncen whch f these cmsers brthlaces s t reman fxe That just means that ths subjunctve cntnal has n nnarbtrar truth value urthermre even after ths frst stulatn has been mae thers must fllw n ts tran Su se that we hl fast t the clam that Ver was talan an let zets natnalt flat t then seems that the subjunctve cn tnal f zet an Ver were cmatrts then zet wul have been talan" erhas cmes ut true ut hw are we t eal wth zet havn been b n Pars Aan we have a chce: w e can ve u that clam r we can han n t t. Suse we han n t t an als cntnue t suse that Ver was talan We then seem t et the fllwn result: f zet an Ver ha been cmatrts Pars wul have been n tal" An s frth Tun nw t zcks remarks n etermnn the truth value f subjunctve cntnals what es he have t sa The answer s nt much e ntes frst that hs subjunctve clauses lace cnstrants n knwlee clams that are nt eas t satsf et nt s werful as t rule ut everthn as an nstance f knwlee." n artcular A subjunctve cntnal f were true wul be true es nt sa that entals r that t s lcall mssble that et nt t sas that n the stuatn that wul btan f were true als wul be true" ( 1 3 Seakn mressnstcall subjunctve cntnals seem t be just strn enuh t the jb that estemlsts nee ne wever nt an subjunctve cntnal wll fr as nte abve sme subjunctve cntnals seem netermnate n ther truth values w then are the arrate subjunctve cntnals t be secfe f zck has anthn t sa n ths crucal subject t aears n the fllwn assae whch s a cntnuatn f the assae just cte: his poit is ought out spiy y i t possi wods outs o suutivs th suutiv is tu wh oughy i thos wods i whih p hods tu tht osst to th tu wod so is tu Emi thos wods i whih p hods t osst to th tu wod d s i hods tu i
4
yrrhnan Reectns f hese Wheher r n q s re n wrlds ha are sll farher away fr he aal wrld s rrelean he rh f he sb jnve 134
Thus in chaaci h uh cniins f subunciv cniinals fuh sucus mus b ims n h s f ssi bl wls T his Nick fllwin b Salnak an Davi Lwis saks f ssibl wls ha a cloe h acual wl Inuiivl in valuain a subunciv cniinal w cnsi nl hs ssibl wls wh is u wls) ha eemle h acual wl ms clsl This bins us Nick's cmmnain xane hse wrlds n whh hlds re lses he aal wrld and see f hlds re n all f hese 3
If his cniin is m hn subuncivl imlis Th fis an fcl cc sns his cmmnain is sa ha i is il sinc nhin cuns as examnng ssibl wls s wha is u in hm Talk f xaminin ssibl wls clss hwis) is a mah ha is l mislain n f ssiblwls smanics vi uh cniins f subunciv cniinals an innn scificain mus b ivn cncnin wha smblancs cun ( can b ma cun Such a scificain vn if i can b cai u in a nna biay wa) is n a ma f fmal smanics. Nick acuall sms b makin a las hinin ahis sam in in a fn an his cmmns n ssiblwls smanics If he pssblewrlds seans s sed represen nerfa als and sbjnves he relevan wrlds are n hse ha are ls es r s slar he aal wrld nless he easre f lse ness r slary s wha wld ban f were re Ceay, th cannot be ued to exan when ubunctve hod tue but t can be ued to eeent them. 4n, ephass added
This is cc bu i is an xaina amissin n Nzicks a n h b f h x h sms sus ha in sm wa h h examnan f cls ssibl wls will mak sns u f u callin cain subunciv cniinals u ah han fals. nw sms ha i is u insincs cncnin h uh f subuncivs ha u us cncin wha smblancs similaiis cun an hus which ssibl wls ssss h uisi masu f clsnss Thins hav bn un aun as Nick
bjnctvm and bjnctvt
5
imlicitl acknwlees in the fllwin technical flurish It wul be f interest t knw what rerties hl f istance metrics which serve t reresent subunctives an t knw hw sub unctives must be structure an interrelate s that the can be iven a ssible wrls reresentatin" 1 7n At least this much is clear The aeal t ssible wrls es n substantive wrk in establishin the truth cnitins fr subunctive cnitinalsa int that Nzick in his mre cani mments acknwlees. Derivativel then it es n substantive wrk in establishin the truth cnitins fr knwlee claims Wh then has Nzick aeale t ssiblewrls semantics at all? At ne int he suests that his use is urel heuristic I am nt cmmitte t this te f accunt. I smetimes use it thuh when it illus trates ints in an eseciall clear wa" 1 7) Then in a ftnte aene t this assae he tells us Our urses require fr the mst art n mre than an intuitive unerstanin f subunctives" (6 80n) In this same ftnte he als makes it clear that he is nt a realist with rear t ssible wrls Wh then the aeal t s sible wrls at all? Wh mre imrtantl es the qualifin hrase fr the mst art" aear in the isclaimer ust cite? The answer is that ssiblewrls semanticsan nt ust an intuitive unerstanin f subunctiveswill la a central rle in his refuta tin f a sitin he calls sketicism Ill turn t this next.
Nozick again h "kpic Since it is har t imrve n it let me bein with Peter Klein's cn cise statement f Nzicks characterizatin f a sketics arument Suppos h som skpil snrio (ll i SK wr ru or mpl h I m in h v on Alph Cnuri nd h m hv ng h sm xprins h I m prsnly hving Sin bing in room in Nw Brunswik nils no bing on Alph Cnuri i I know h I m in Nw Brunswik hn know h I m no on Alph Cnuri Bu I don know h I m no on Alph Cnuri hus I don know h I m in Nw Brnswik upFoy 987 267)
r ur resent urses it will be useful t unack this arument as an exlicit reucti a absurum 1 knws that he is in New runswick (hthesis) . If is in New runswick then he is nt n Alha entauri
6
yhoia Reecions
f knws that he s n New unswck an ben n New unswck entals hs nt bn n Alha Centau then knws that he s nt n Alha Centau ut es nt knw that he s nt n Alha Centau . S cnta t assumtn es nt knw that he s n New unswck The th emse n ths aument s an nstance f the ncle f clsue f knwlee namel that f knws that p an p entals then knws that Obvusl that ncle s state s false snce f examle a esn wh knws all f the axms efntns stulates etc f Euclean emet es nt theeb knw all ts theems u esent uses hweve we can av ths ffcult b assumn that n the ases we examne actuall aws the eque nfeence Even wth ths qualfcatn the ncle f clsue f knwlee s false snce ma aw the eque nfeence n atnal uns f examle n the belef that an tw stns ental each the ee we wll suse that esnt aw hs nfeences n such an atnal wa n eneal we wll ne fnck bectns t the ncle f clsue f knwlee s that the eectn f ths ncle f we eect t s mtant Retunn t the aument tself t s cetan val ut ntn ths ves us abslutel n easn t suse that the cnclusn s tue. A val aument equall nvtes us t en the cnclusn as the bass f enn the cnjunctn f the emses t accet the emses as a bass f affmn the cnclusn Modus ons an modus ponns ae n a a. ven ths vaus esnses t the au ment can sml be la ut. The Sketcs Mve The sketc as Nzck ctues hm accets emses thuh an then b an aument euc t a absuum enes emse T be esuasve the ske tc must esent easns f accetn all thee emses thuh but hstcall he has usuall cncentate n establshn the tuth f the futh emse Thse wh eject ths aument have a vaet f tns (a Mes Resnse Wth beathtakn smlct . E. M has aue that ne can knw the st f thn that s sa t knw n emse 1 an nee knw ths wth ce tant Then takn emses an 3 f ante he dity cnclues that emse s false
ncvsm and ncvs
Ib) The usificainais esnse Like Mre jusificain alissin he bra sense in which I wi use he ermrejec remise ( ) Unike Mre he aem ruce a ssemaic arumen hoin ha () is false In he secn ar f his su I wi arue ha all such jusificainais aems fail III) The erahical esnse. Is a eas ssibe en he secn remise hlin ha ew runswick is r ma be) n Alha Cenauri Aleaivel a craze Whieheaean mih sues ha he inference invlves he fallac f sime lca in ) I will inre his resnse IV) zicks esnse. Since n his accun f knwee cu knw ha he is in ew rnswick he mus rejec ne f he remises ha leas he cnclusin ha he cu n. e icks n remise 3) he csure rincie I is imran ne hwever ha in rer reach he cnclusin ha he c sure rincile is false he mus jin he skeic in mainainin ha he skeica remise () is rue Al hese resnses exce III are wrh akin seriusl an he wil be cnsiere in heir rer lace zicks resnse is ur resen cncern is a is reach he fllwin resu Alhuh i) cann knw ha he r a eas his brain) is n flain in a ju n Alha enauri ii) he can knw ha he is in ew runswick Wih resec i) zick invkes he sanar ndiiminily aru men: Since cul have he same beliefs an exeriences wheher he is jue r unjue he frm his in f view cann knw which siuain he is in ere we mih chaene zicks iner nalis assumins cncein he cnen f a beief bu Il e ha ass. Our resen cnce is hs efense f he caim ha can knw ha he is in ew runswick even huh he cann knw ha he is n n Alha enauri In rer efen his siin zick aacks he hir remise in he skeics arumen: he rincile f clsure fr knwlee. Aain we are n in cnce urselves wih minr rblems cncernin his rincile nr wil we ause crrec hem T his crei zick is n raisin finick bjecins his rincie. e is wilin suse ha smene can knw ha is rue knw ha enais q n he basis f his knwee infer q frm bu si fr a his hnes abr no knw ha q he susiin he cnrar zick cals he skeics shr se frm a skeical scenari skeicism cncein rinar beiefs. Le me que he ke ar f zicks arumen inene esabish his in
8
yrrhnan Reectin Lt s bgn wth ondton 3) If wr fals woldnt bl that Whn nows that hs blf that s ontngnt on th trth of ontngnt n th way that sbjnt ondton 3 dsrbs. Now t ght b that ntals and nows ths) that 's blf that s sbjntly ontngnt on th trth of that bls that yt hs blf that s not sbjntly dpndnt on th trth of n that t or h) dos not satsfy: 3 If wr fals woldnt bl that For 3 tals of what wold bl f wr fals, and ths ay b a ry dffrnt staton than th on that wold hold f wr fals n thogh ntals . That yo wr born n a rtan ty ntals that yo wr born on arth. t ontplatng what at ally wold b th staton f yo wr not born n that ty s ry dffrnt fro ontplatng what staton wold hold f yo wrn't born on arth. 2067)
The aumen is cappe wih an appeal o possible wols Thr s no rason to ass th losst not world and th los st) not world ar doxastally dntal for yo and no rason to ass n thogh ntals that yor blfs n on of ths worlds wold b a propr sbst of yor blfs n th othr 206
Thee ae vaious was of esponin o his aumen One is o ake Nozicks aumen on his own ems an ask whehe he possiblewols epesenaions whee he pinciple of closue fo known implicaion fails ae inuiivel plausible on ohe couns When he pinciple of closue fo known implicaion fails wha else fails wih i an ae hese failues oleable? Thouh he maeial has no eache pin a he ime of his wiin, I unesan ha Saul Kipke has aue in a numbe of venues, ha Nozicks epesenaion of possible wols whee he pinciple of closue fo known implicaion fails caies wih i an avalanche of fuhe infeenial failues ha ae eepl couneinuiive If ha is coec hen he eecion of he pinciple of closue fo nown implicaion is bou a an unaccepabl hih pice Moe eneall have aue ha i oesn make sense o invoke possiblewols semanics o specif uh coniions fo subsanive subuncive coniionals Alhouh i is possible o impose sucues on possible wols such ha he pinciple of closue fo knowlee failsan in his sense pn failues of his pinciplei oes no make sense o speak of examinin close possible wols an iscovein ha his pinciple acuall oes fail
ncvsm and ncvs
9
Th Failu of Epimic Clou Over aainst bth these claims it miht be arue that Nzick an Dretske befre him rvie clear examles where the ricile f clsure fr knwn imlicatin fails. If that is crrect then the ques tin f hw such a reresentatin shul be imlemente becmes a matter f technical etail I will arue that the suse examles f failure f clsure uner knwn imlicatin rerl unerst exhibit n such failure Instea f examinin sketical scenaris I will itch the iscus sin in terms f remte ssibilities As we shall see the same at tes will emere that Nzick rvies in his wn examles Su se that I am walkin thruh a remte wileess an st what I take t be a reat he wl. The liht is reat he wls are eas t ientif an I am an exert birer I have n hesitatin in thinkin that I knw that the bir is a reat he wl I then reflect as fllws If that bject is a reat he wl then it is nt a umm mae f wax. I knw that it is a reat he wl but I thereb knw that it is nt a umm mae f wax? Well frm where I stan there is n wa f tellin whether it is a wax umm r nt. It seems then that I nt knw that it is nt a wax umm an usin modu on n the clsure rincile I seem riven t the cnclusin that I was wrn reviusl t think I knew that the bir was a reat he wl This examle arallels Nzicks brain inthevat sketical scenari If we are incline t hl n t the claim that I i fr all that knw that it was a reat he wl in the tree then I seem riven t abann the rincile f clsure uner knwn imlicatin. Ill call this case 1 T cntinue the str an et case II suse that I check an iscver that the bject is a wax umm. I nw reasn (usin modu ponn n the clsure rincile) I knw that this is a wax umm I als knw that if it's a wax umm then it is nt a reat he wl s I knw that it is nt a reat he wl In this reasnin I have aain use the rincile f clsure fr knwlee an I have use it it seems in a erfectl leitimate wa Wh we ten t have ifferent reactins t these tw cases Wh that is are we incline t reject the rincile f clsure in the first case et accet it withut hesitatin in the secn? The answer I think is that ur cmmn use f knwlee claimsincluin ou uses f knwlee claimsur assertins are nt resnsive t ever ssibilit that miht refute them We are willin t make knwlee claims while recizin that smetimes
80
yrrhnin Reectins
hins cme up ha lea us wihaw hem This is precisely wha happene in he firs wl example iven abve T use an analy rawn frm cmpuer chess prrams ur episemic aciviies are vee by parameers ha cnrl wih an eph f search These parameers are eermine by a number f facrs he cmplexiy f he siuain he suppse risk f errr he imprance f ein hins rih he ransacin css f ainin new infrmain an s n The impran fac fr he presen iscussin is ha hese parameers f search can chane as circumsances chane; in paricular he exiencies f inuiry can sprea hem wier r rive hem eeper A hir variain n he wl example will illusrae hese pins As befre I am walkin in a reme wilerness an sp wha I ake be a rea he w The ienificain srikes me as why unprblemaic I hen cme upn a cleverly fabricae pileae wpecker acke he runk f a pinn pine My suspicins aruse I search he area an fin he lanscape cluere wih wax imiains f birs Wha nw shul I say abu my ienificain f he rea he wl? In case II I wihrew my claim ha I knew ha i was a rea he wl because I came knw smehin (ie ha i was a wax ummy ha implie ha i was n an wl a all In his hir case I apply modu ton he principle f cl sure an cme he cnclusin ha I n knw ha he bjec is a rea he wl because I n knw ha i is n a wax ummy. Thus he hree cases sr u in he fllwin way In case I we have a seeminly prblemaic applicain f he principle f clsure in rawin he cnclusin ha I n knw ha i is a rea he wl because I n knw ha i is n a wax ummy since nhin in he cnex prmps me wrry abu he pssibiliy f wax ummies In case II we have an unprblemaic applicain f he principle f clsure because I have iscvere smehin (e ha he bec is a wax ummy ha implies ha i is n a rea he wl an hus cann be knwn be ne In case III we have an unprblemaic applicain f he principle f clsure because I have iscvere smehin (i.e a bach f wax ummies) ha es prp me increase he level f search in a way ha will brin his principle in play ere hen is my eneral iansis f he apparen failures f he principle f clsue knwle which Nick hs pine n
ncvsm and jncvs
81
each f his narratives Nzick has misrepresente a fact abut the level f inquir as a fact abut the lic f epistemic terms In each f Nzicks cases the epth f search must shift as we pass frm cnsierin the anteceent p t cnsierin the cnsequent q The level f inquir shiftsin fact eepenswhen I pass frm the questin s that a reat he w? " t the questin s that a umm reat he w?" When the epth f search is hel cnstant n failuresat least f the kin that Nzick suestsf the clsure principle arise
Nozick againt th kptic inall an briefl we can nte that Nzicks arument even if it were ecisive aainst skepticism as he represents it wul have n tenenc t refute thse skeptical aruments that philsphers have felt threatenin I have arue this pint in m review f Nzicks hlosophcal xplanaons an this same pint has been evel pe in etail b Davi Shatz Since it will help t clarif what the skeptical challene amunts t I will repeat these criticisms here We can sa that a persn Nzickknw that p if her belief that p satisfies Nzick's cnitins fr knwlee It seems clear that fr all I knw I ma Nzickknw a reat man thins. ertain f m beliefs ma track the truth withut m havin an reasn t suppse the S if knwin is ientifie with Nzickknwin then it shul be clear that can knw (ie Nzickknw) that he is in New runswick withut knwin (ie Nzickknwin) that he is nt in a ju n Alpha entauri With all the paraphealia strippe awa this is precisel what Nzicks antiskeptical aru ment cmes t ncein this I remarke Now if this is th gumt gist th skpti do ot thik it will ovly mbss him Skptis dl i gumts Dsts fo mpl mitis tht th o gumts o t lst o othologil gumts tht stblish tht w ot dmig Similly Hum podus ogumt gumt to th fft tht othig ustify ou li o idutiv if s bus o gumt ustify th piipl of th uifo mity of tu o whih thy ly hps somthig b sid i spos to ths skptil gumts but Noiks fltios o th vb "to kow do ot sm to b o thm ou wold is odly d ou potiv mhisms wll tud to this od liss th ou potios will oft tk th tuth Suh po tios will ostitut Noikkowldg But pso Noik kow tht p without hvig th ustfid blf tht (his is
82
yrrhnian Reectins ental feate f an extenalit ant f nwledge) heefe the exitene f Ninwledge patible with the nd ne f He agent f indtie eptii and annt efte it At t Ni an ie nly a all plaint againt the epti the epti ge n t ay that hi agent hw that we d nt annt) nw etain thing and if Ni' ant f nwledge i eentially et, then the epti an be aed f speakin inetly The epti hld be ntent with aying that etain fndaental piniple ae inapable f jtifiatin bt if Ni ant f nwledge i et] hld nt g n t ay that theefe we annt nw the t be te 82223)
I nt think this criticism is state inte enuh The crucia fact is that ume aie his sketica ubts t patula u ments fr exame that the sun wi rise tmrrw r that brea wi cntinue t nurish. Nzicks resnse is that even if we cannt knw fr exame that the future wi resembe the ast we miht sti knw that articuar uments f this kin are true because in fact these beiefs track the truth ume hwever is eain with ustificatin an accrin t him we have n ustifi catin fr these articuar beiefs because we have n ustificatin fr a rincie we re n in min t them We can then sa mre inte that umes inuctive sketicism with rear t articuar beiefs is cmatibe with ssessin Nzickknwee f them. Thus the existence f Nzickknwee with resect t articuar inuctive base beiefs es nt refute umes sketicism cncein them.
Dk again Epimic Clou The attack n the rincie f csure fr knwee i nt bein with Nzick As Nzick ruin amits re Dretske in his arti ce Eistemic Oeratrs ha a this an ha it first" (689 n 3) I wi cse b kin at Dretskes attack n this rincie fr tw reasns irst it attemts t make his reectin f this rincie seem intuitive ausibe instea f basin it n arcane aeas t ssibewrs semantics Secn athuh as it seems t me Dretskes sitin is wrn it cntains sme thins that are imrtant riht. Dretskes centra exame fr exhibitin a faiure f the rincie f csure fr knwee is simia t m w exame It cnces zebras
Sncvm and S;ncv
83
You tk you so to th zoo s sl zbs d wh qus tod by you so tll hm thy zbs Do you kow thy zbs? Wll most of us would h lttl hstto syg tht w dd kow ths Yt somthgs bg zb mpls tht t s ot mul d ptul ot mul lly dsgusd to look lk zb 10 1 5 1 6
Detske acknwleges that in this situatin he i nt knw that the ceatues wee nt clevel isguise mules e cntinues pt ompy wth th skpt oly wh h oluds fom ths tht thfo you do ot kow tht th mls th p zbs pt fom thm bus t th ppl h uss hg ths olusoth ppl tht f you do ot kow tht s tu wh t s kow tht tls th you do ot kow tht s tu ( 01 6
at cman fm Detske because in the examle as h e escibes it nt think we knw that the animals ae zebas At least this much seems clea f bseve the suse zebas while staning next t a cage with lins shave an ainte t lk like tiges then nting this m eistemic attitue will change aticula the level f eistemic scutin will ise an will nt accet the claim that these animals ae zebas at least until have ule ut the ssibilit that the ae nt sme the kin f animal ainte t lk like zebas n fact assuance n that int might nt be g enugh f ele wh g aun ainting mules t l like zebas ae esumabl caable f all kins f chicane Less bviusl it seems t me that as sn as we ae le t entetain the ssibilit that the animals ae ainte mules nt zebas h el is enugh t lea us t withaw the unqualifie claim that we knw that the animals befe us ae zebas ee am suggesting that meel welling n such ssibilities is sufficient t aise u level f sctin exect esistance n this int ut cnsie the fllwing Des t eintuce himknw that it is a zeba rhe hn a ainte mule that he sees? The answe t this as Detske wul acknwlege is suel n ut if es nt knw that it is a zeba athe than a ainte mule hw can knw that it is a zeba? The answe might be that is asseting that the animals befe him ae zebas athe than sa ee gazelles wilebeests is nt asset ing that the ae zebas athe than ainte mules wax ummies hlgams) Detske seems t be saing smething like this when he emaks
84
yrrhnan Reectn T nw ha x s A s nw ha x s A whn a faew f eean aenaes B and D Ths se f cnass, gehe wh he fac ha x s A sees t in hat it i that knn when ne nws ha x s A One cann change hs se f cn ass whu changng hat a prn i ai t kn when he s sad nw ha x s A ( 1 022 ephass added
Thee is smethin iht abut this When ientifie the ani mals as ebas his nl cnce was nt t cnfuse this kin f animal with anthehe was nt wie f examle abut ainte mules That is cect but cnta t what Detske seems t be suestin these cnsieatins nt affect the ontnt f what claims t knw Suse we iscve that the ae ainte mules; then 5 is ust wn an esn't knw what he claims t knw An we miht eect his knwlee claim even if we ae nt in a sitin t see that what he claims t knw is actuall false We miht see as he cannt that the cae next t the suse ebas is fille with shave lins ainte t lk like ties That stane iscve b itself miht be sufficient f us t en that 5 knws that the animals he is lkin at ae ebas even if in fact the ae This shws that it esn't hel t suest that 5 in his knwlee claim nl mnt t exclue a cetain ane f elevant ssibilities that is that the animals wee nt ebas but instea sme the similal stie animals What he sai was that the wee ebas an if the aitinal infmatin we have aises imtant cnces abut the trnth f 5s evience then we will nt ant that 5 knws quite ineenentl f the questin whethe what cnces us was smethin that uht t have cncee him This bins us back t a familia int n uin whethe s uns ae aequate t establish the tuth f what he claims t knw we ae in n wa cnstaine b the actical cnsieatins that uie 5 in fmin his beliefs e ma have been entiel easnable in nt win abut sme emte efeatin ssibilit ut if fm u esective we see that this ssibilit is ma well be ealie then 5s uns thuh ehas esnsibl invke nt establish the tuth f what 5 claims t knw an then 5 es nt knw
Nots Dese 97a
2. ( and ( 2 ae Dese's nubes whch w be cnenen pe see. (a2 s y wn nenn s ddy nubeed f beween De se's fuas ( 1 and (2 .
jncvsm and jncvs
85
3 Apopos of th (Ci lus Dtsk mks h pp of th wod kow i this htiztio (i Ci dos ot d i iul si it b limitd by usiv ppitio of th th oditios util (Ciii is hd ( 13 m skptil oig th possibility of y suh usiv poss of limitio, but this is topi osidd i th sod hlf of this study 4 ogli 1967 5 his shm ws lbotd i vious wys fo mpl by pl ig posssss with ommds but ths dtils do ot mtt h 6 hv md this sm poit i ommtig o th thid hpt of Robt Noziks hosophca Expanaons (Nozik 1 98 1 wh h stts Dtsks viws t som todiy lgth 7 footot, Dtsk pliitly stts tht ot oly should w ot qui tht bliv h hs olusiv sos i od to kow but lso w shoud ot qui tht h ot bi tht h dost h olusi sos ( 7 m ovid tht th fist th BoJou outmpls isussd li show tht this is wog but gi dot thik th Bo Jou outmpls ut v dp d lyss tht subt to thm sily otd by itoduig (iii lus 8 Dtsks ow mpl ivolvs hmi iditos, but his mks bout this s sily dptd to th somwht simpl th momt mpl shll us 9 Alvi oldm uss this s s outmpl to Noziks lysis of kowldg (S oldm 1 986, 45 10 Mti 1975 1 1 kig Nozik's Spti A Btt Mthod Mti hs pplid sstilly this sm outmpl i similly disiv wy gist Noziks subutivist out of kowldg (Mti 19 83 12 should mk it l tht hv o gl obtio to possibl wolds smtis ts us fo mpl by Kipk fo stblishig omplt ss poofs i modl logi stiks m s moy i th logil bk Kipk dos ot howv mploy possiblwolds smtis i od to ly dow rh condons fo subtiv oditiols With him obt to this p ti Namn and Necess Kipk puts th mtt this wy h pp tus of possibl wolds hs ( hop b vy usful s f s th sttho ti modlthoy of qutifid mod logi is od but hs ougd philosophil psudopoblms d misldig pitus (Kipk 19 80, 48 1 5 A possibl wold h tlls us ist distt ou ty tht w omig oss o viwig though tlsop (44 13 his sod ostuto sms oty to Eglish usg Stph Bk mks th poit ily Noziks hdlig of this gmm boms spilly wkwd wh i gd to th povisos () (2 d (4 h wits Not oly is p t d blivs it but if it w tu h would bliv it [Nozik 1 98 1 1 76] H i sigl mk h ombis togth
hnan Rcin
86
he aerig of a odiio worded a hough he aued i aeede o be fae wih he aerig of i aeede uper Foy 987 8889 Barker aep o hep Nozik by revivig he oewha arhai oru io f houd be rue he woud beieve i bu ofe ha hi doe oud righ o e eiher Barker' ouio i ha i geera he ype of aee ha i aed for here i ipy he odiioa 289 reuaby a ubuive odiioa for 3 ad a idiaive odiioa for 4 ) Over agai boh Nozik ad Barker I do' hik 4 houd be epreed by a odiioa oruio a a ive he iuaio a Noz ik deribe i he o aura way o epre (4 i a foow (4 beieve beaue i rue erhap Nozik ha a good reao for avoidig hi aura oruio bu he give o idiaio wha i i 4 Quie 982 23 5 See Saaker 984 ad ewi 973 6 he reaider of hi og foooe Nozik peuae o he for a orre poibeword eai for ubuive igh ake provided ha i ha oe ehod for deeriig diae eri have bee aeedey eabihed 7 See Moore 925 ad Moore 939 8 haper 8 I eaie ierai aou of eaig ad beief oe 9 O hee aer have profied fro overaio wih Mihae Dea Roa oerig a yeobepubihed paper he ha wrie o hi ube 20 My preferee for eape ivovig reoe poibiiie raher ha adard kepia eario i epaied i he e haper 2 geera i wha have aed ae of epiei uk we refue o gra ha kow oehig eg ha he obe before her i a bar beaue her groud are o of a uffiie deph reaive o he oe a we reogize i 22 ober Audi ha offered ouereape o he priipe of dedu ive oure for kowedgewhih he refer o a he priipe of deduive raiio of kowedgeha uffer fro he ae defe Suppoe for eape ha I hear a bakfire ad ow uoig Audi furher uppoe ha a uffiiey aquaied wih he oud o kno ha i i a bakfire The fro wha kow i foow ha i i o he oud of a fireraker wih a iiar uffed oud Do kow ha i i o? Wha if have o evidee ha here i o oe aroud eig off uh fireraker? A o I a ay fro geera eperiee ha hi i iprobabe i o ear ha ipy hough vaidy
jnctvm and jnctvt
87
oludig it fom my iftial goud kow that th oud i ot that of a fiak with a imila muffld uality O might ow ay that thi ut how that did ot kow i th fit pla that a vhil bakfid But do ot that w mut ay that t may b qually plauibl to ay that bau o n aliz that o' bai fo blivig thi might ot hav b diiv o n ner kow it yt did kow it i th fit pla 198 8 77 A with oth ampl w hav amid thi o ivolv a hift i th lvl of utiy it plauibl a Audi uggt that o thi hift i th lvl of utiy ha oud will ow look ak ad ay that pvi ouly did kow? hat tik m a ompltly implauibl h tmpta tio to thik othi i du liv to big mild by tho ott wh fo damati o htoial fft w pak fom th pptiv of a aumd ott ayig uh thig a kw atly wh it wa ut ouldt fid it By ayig kw ath tha thought kw pak a would hav pok th ad thby damatially idiat th dg of my ommitmt at that tim diu uh tatmt i Evdence and Meann ud th hadig of amphibiouot amphiolouotu tio (Fogli 1 96 7 4 143 23 Fogli 1983 24 Shatz 1987 25. Dtk 1 9 70 26 Nozik 1 98 1 27 hi i ot upiig i my ampl wa modld o hi 28 Dtk' ampl would hav btt if h had ho a ai mal a bit l dititiv tha a zba hat way h ould hav otatd th poblm of ofuig thi aimal with a omwhat imila oth aial with ofuig thi aimal with a fak vio
5 Epstemc Grace t is aays by th rac o natur that on knos somthin
n he Intctin I pice the Pyhnian skeptic in hh the wl claimin t knw cetain thins an smeimes claimin be se even abslely ea cetain f them The Pyhnian skeptic feely paicipaes in cmmn episemic pactices awin n all he pacical isincins embie in hem These pactices ae fen fallible Often his fallibiliy esn mae since the pice f bein wn is nt hih When he cst f e becmes excessive the skeptic like thes may seek ways t impve these pactices s tha the chances f e ae ece Picte this way the skeptic is athe like mes meate skepic whm he imppely cnaste wih he Pyhnian skeptic catis aeeable an sane istically he Pyhnian skepics have aee the philsphe as the bect f hei skeptical atack ee the philsphe is nes as smene wh eithe 1 attemps t epae cm mn falible mes f hinkin abt the wl wih new mes hat tanscen hem ( acceps hese cmmn mes f thinkin bt attemps t groud them in mes tha tanscen hem The fist is the evisinis statey the secn he jstificatinalis satey They ae ften cmbine in vais pptins Sestins have been mae cncein the sce f his philsphical ive a flih fm peil Dewey a es ncnitinal cmprehensin Kan a feelin f anc aains time ietzsche lanae in n a hliay (Witenstein an s fth bt whateve i is that ives peple enae in this kin f philsphy he Pyhnian skepic 88
89
Epsemic Grace
is aainst it. The int f Prrhnian sketicism is t reject all such mves that attemt t transcenrather than t imrve r er fectur cmmn justificatr rceures But esnt the hilshical critic f ur cmmn was f mak in eistemic juments have a leitimate cmlaint? w can we sa that runs ealih the truth f a rsitin while at the same time amittin that these runs nt cmletel exclue the ssiilit that the rsitin in questin is false? f we rec nize that a rsitin miht e false, nt we have gound fo douing that rsitin, an isnt havin runs fr utin sme rsitin incmatile with noing it t e true? Me intel, with inuctive justificatin, it seems that runs never cmletel estalish the truth f a elief thus we seem t e riven the analsis resente in chater 1 t the cnclusin that there is n such thin as inuctive knwlee This is the cr f the euctive chauvinist, ut erhas it is time t st callin names an tr t sa what is wrn with euctive chauvinism.
Juificaoy Pocdu As we have seen, it is an imrtant feature f the ettier rlems that the nt tu n imsin uncmmnl hih stanars f justificatin n ur eistemic erfrmances. It is just this feature that searates the ettier rlems frm man traitinal sketical ls As nte, the enius f ettiers riinal arument is that it seems t enerate rfun rlems while at the same time allw in us t use erfetl rinar justificatr rceures. B an ri nar justificatr rceureI am nt trin t ruce a efini tinI mean a rcess that we thruh when we are seekin justifie true elief. Examles f justificatr rceures inclue such thins as lkin thruh a eehle t see wh is at the r, cnsultin an exert t fin ut whether arkin tickets are tax euctile usin a stanar slutin t check the accurac f a chemical analsis, an s n. These justificatr rceures cme in a wie variet f frms havin, at mst a famil resemlance t ne anther. Simle r cmlex, theretical r nntheretical, these are rceures we actuall use as a result f usin them, we cme t elieve that we have runs fr accetin certain rsitins as true. Such justificatr rceures are the asis fr th the jument that justifial came t elieve smethin an the jument that s runs estalish the truth f smethin In the frmer case we
90
Phnan Reectns
ae cmmenin n s pefmancewhehe he caie u he pceue cecl pehaps whehe he caie u he cec pceue. Even when psiive such an assessmen s n cmmi us he ruh f wha claims knw In he lae case we accep s usifica famewk as leiimae an cncuin in s evienial appaisal in him in accepin a se f uns as esablishin he uh f wha he claims knw. We have seen ha i is p ssible f hese w assessmens ivee. s pefmance ma be aequaeha is n iespnsiblebu his uns inaequae. This picall aises when we ae piv efeain infmain ha cann be expece knw. (eie examples in all hei fms buil upn such siuains We have als seen cases wee s uns huh aequae ae n invke cecl b him. Such ba easninif ba enuhfm uns a cec cnclusin es n cun as knwlee. I is impan see ha even in in episeml we lael ake hese backun usifica pceues f ane ha is u inuiins ae uie b hese cmmn usifica pceues wih lile explici eflecin n hem Even philsphes wh emphasize episemic espnsibili peae in his wa f in pesenin cuneexamples sa aains he exealis he ae picall in shw us ha exenalism uns cune u om mon was f uin
Doub mplemenin he claim ha easns uns ae iven wihin usificar pacice is he fuhe claim ha doub ae expesse wihin usificar famewks as well. T expess a ub is make a mve if u like a cunemvewihin wha am callin a usifica pacice T he quesin Wha makes u ub ha?" he pical espnse is pin sme failue ina equac in meein he apppie usifica sanas. We ae n alwas able aiculae he uns f u ubs Smeimes we can sa lile me han ha smehin seems suspicius peculia fish u f whack. Thins can feel wn smell f paax huh we will ake such unaiculae ubs seiusl nl when he pesn wh expesses hem has expeience in such maes. easns ha will emee shl i will be helpful isinuish vaius kins ( levels f ub encunee in philsphical wiin cncene wih he her f knwlee
Epsemic Grace
91
(A) erblic Dubts: thse that rest n sstematicall uneliminable ssibilities as generate fr examle b scall sketical scenaris (As I view an wl I ma wner whether I am awake r aslee r erhas whether m exeriences are cause b extraterrestrials wh cntrl m brain ) (i) Eliminable but Imractical Dubts: thse that rest n extremel unlikel ssibilities that cul be eliminate but fr which it wul be a mark f bsessiveness t s (What I take t be an wl ma be an ingeniusl rjecte hlgram.) (ii) Eliminable Legitimate Dubts thse that rest n ssibilities whse eliminatin is eane b the justificatr rce ure being emle In cmmn arlance these are rel pobilie (I recall that a ung great hrne wl can be smewhat similar t a mature lngeare wl an I havent reall checke this ut) Dubts f te (A) unlike ubts f tes (i) an (ii) have smetimes been eclare illegitimate becue the raise challenges that are sstematicall uneliminable. Wittgenstein ate this line in bth his earl an his late writings Thus in the cu we fin assages f the fllwing kin
f qusio b fmd ll i is lso ossb o sw i . Skpiism is nt ifubl bu obviously ossil wh i iss doubs wh o qusio b skd
Similar assages ccur in On eny written frt ears later C 3 f g somo sys do' kow f h's hd h h migh b old ook los his possibiliy of sisfyig o slf is p of h lguggm s o of is ssil fus
Such verificatinalist (r transcenental) arguments have enje cnsierable vgue in this centur. ere I will cncentrate n the eliminable ubts that fall int the (i) an (ii) categries . It is I think a lain fact that we ften make serius knwlege claims in the face f nnexclue remte (an smetimes nt s remte) unercutting ssibilities Wittgenstein ntes this in the fllwing assage frm On eny C 35 O mus liz [h] h ompl bs of doub som po v wh w would sy h lgiim doub is d o flsify lguggm Fo h is so somhig lik anthr ihmi
92
Prrhnian Reectins bliv ha hi amiion mu unrli any unraning of logi
What interests me here is Wittenstein's reference t lgma ubt which I take it stans ppse t philsphical ubts f the kin that fall int the A) cater iven abve I take this t be a eeper claima mre farreachin claimthan his attack n skepti cal scenaris ust nte Wittenstein is sain that we accept thins believe them an act n them in the face f ientifiable risks that we cul eliminate but nt e further claims that this is simpl hw we empl ur lanuae an acceptin this is essen tial fr a prper unerstanin f hw ur lanuae wrks Later in On any Wittenstein applies these reflectins t ur use f the verb t knw" but the passaes are bscure an in fact eas t et backwar Sme leain will help ac 50. look a an obj an ay Tha i a r or know ha
ha a r Now i go narr an i urn ou ha i in, may ay wan' a r ar all or alrnaivly ay was a r bu now i in any longr Bu i al h ohr onrai m an ai i nvr ha bn a r, an if all h ohr vin pok again mwha gd woul i o m o ik o my " know
Cmmentin n this passae Wittenstein cntinues ac 504 Whhr knw omhing pn on whhr h vi
n bak m up or onrai m
rm the cntext it is clear that b evience Wittenstein simpl means the facts f the matter This brins us t this passae: ac 505 . i alway by h gra of naur [vn Gnaden der Natur]
ha on know omhing
n makin knwlee claims r at least claims t empirical knwl ee we rel n the race f nature nt t efeat usat least when we have behave reasnabl well When s race we are sai t knw The philspher we miht sa wants t replace thi cve nant f race with a cvenant f wrk Althuh ur cmmn justificatry prceures nt eman that we elminate all ptential efeaters it is part f these prceures t have builtn mechanisms fr ealn with epistemicall rsk cir cumstances. r the mst part we believe what peple tell us but sme circumstancesfr example ealin with the prverbial usecar salesmantrier the cautinar fla Dn't believe eveythn u hear" We usuall trst ur ees in frmin beliefs abut smenes
93
Episemic race
actions but at times it is worth rememberin that the han is quicker than the ee An so on In the lanuae of the law certain circum stances trier strict scrutin. What those circumstances are an how strict the scrutin becomes is built into our justificator roceures
Levels of cutiny oin back to Wittensteins remark that comlete absence of oubt . . . even where a leitimate oubt can exist nee not falsif a lanuaeame" we now see hat in a wa it is misleain Pro erl unerstoo ltmat oubts are efine from within an eis temic ractice A leitimate oubt is one we o consier an remove before we make our knowlee claim ailin this we will not be sai to know even if b the race of nature our belief tus out to be true In fact since this is a tical Wittensteinian oint I o not think he woul reject it an that I think is wh he ut the wor leitimate" in scare quotes I think he uses this term in orer to make vivi the oint that we emlo justificator ractices that o not eman that we exclue all everaas oose to her bolicrouns for oubt. In certain circumstances where we miht oubt we siml ont an our lanuae ames rest on this In On tainty Wittenstein makes the oint this wa C, 509. ly wt to sy tht lguggm is oy possil if o tusts somthig did ot sy tust somthig
he arenthetical remark is ccial for it inicates that it is the fact that I trust somethin not the inherent trustworthiness of what I trust that lies at the base of m lanuae ames. We can see the force of these last remarks b reflectin on what haens if we are relentless in attemtin to eliminate remote efeat in ossibilities ormall we iore these ossibilities but if we well on them our evel of scrutin will rise an we will fin ourselves unwillin to claim to know man thins that we usuall accet as items of knowlee. Do I for examle know m own name? his seems to me to be as sure a iece of knowlee as I os sess ut erhas throuh a mixu in the hosital I am a chanelin Im reall erbert Ortcutt an the erson who is calle Ortcutt" is actuall hese thins ater al o haen iven this ossibil it o I kow m own name? Im incline to sa that I o not. ot onl that hilosohical nafs namel those who o not see that such an amission ma lea to forlo sketicism ten to aree When resse in this wa eole are likel to become imatient even
94
Prrhnian Reectins
an e une pessue ms will acknwlee ha sicl speakinif u ae in be pickiven ha he n knw he ae n chanelins he n knw hei wn names Seein hw eflecin n eme pssibiliies can aise he level f scuin an hus lea us wihaw episemic cmmimen in a whlesale wa shws ha we n have inuce skepical scenais in e eneae skepical pblems eflecin n unexclue eme not o mot pssibiliies can lea us hink we alms neve knw he hins we claim knw As ln as we mainain his inense view f hins" we will be isincline hink we knw hins ae jusifie in believin hins ha we nmall accep wihu hesiain When we eun pacical affais f ife u sanas will eun hei nmal meae level an his isinclinain will fae This is all ve umean f i suess ha he applicain f ceain cnceps epens n he nnlinuisic fac ha human beins lack he mivain inclinain abili imainain empl hem in ceain was T philsphes imbue wih he aesian ieal liffian scuples his line f huh ma seem cmpleel uaeus Amiel sme lanuae ames ma es n he pacice f n ubin hins ha we mih ub bu his can hal be ue f he pacice f makin knwlee claims whse ve pin is exclue all ub. This afe all seems be a iec cnsequence f he analsis f knwlee pesene in his wk namel: Knwlee ha is a belief ha jusifiabl aive a n gound that tabh th tuth o u if ha is cec hen i seems eniel naual ask hw uns can esablish he uh f smehin when a he same ime hee ae unecuin pssibiliies ha have n been eliminae. The answe hisan his I hink is Wienseins cenal pinis ha his is hw we empl episemic ems. We at smehin hus cmmiin uselves i wihu esevain while a he same ime leavin eliminable efuin pssibiliies une liminae This is a faca fac abu hw we empl knwlee claims Alhuh his is misleain in a wa be ne in a mmen we mih sa ha in makin knwlee claims we alwas alms alwas) asse me han we have a ih asse We have hus aive a w facual claims The frs cnces wha we mean when we sa ha knws ha I knws ha p means jusifiabl believes ha n uns ha sablish he uh f p
Episemic Grace
95
The secn escribes hw ele actuall eml an actual unerstan knwlee claims I. When ele claim t knw thins the nt s in the belief that the have eliminate all eliminable retin ssibil ities nr their auitrs suse that the believe this
I There a Fact of the Matter in Knowing If a claim is mae that knws that is there a fact f the matter the resence f which wul make this claim true an the absence f which wul make it false ? That questin is easil trivialize fr it is bvius that / knws that is true if an nl if knws that T tr aain eistemic claims be the law f bivalencethat is is it either efinitel true r efinitel false that knws that r es this alwas een n sme further ecisin such that n simle es r n answer is ssible? Takin this questin in the sense in which I think it is intene m answer is that the sitin evele thus far imlies ne wa r anther n that matter. There is it must be sai a fact r set f facts in virtue f which an eistemic claim will be crrectl deemed true frm within a justificatr framewrk functinin at a articular level f scrutin. If a ersn claims t knw smene's telehne number n the basis f lkin it u in a telehne irectr ears ut f ate then that ersn has acte irressibl relative t the stanars fr finin such thins ut an thus iven this fact is nt justifie in his belief an es nt knw. Of curse this ersn miht have ineenent reasns fr believin the irectr thuh ut f ate is reliable an cnsierin that fact cul chane ur eistemic assessment .) A ersn wh fins the number in a current irectr will be sai t knwrvie he tus ut t be riht Of curse reasns cul arise fr istrustin the accurac f the current irectr erhas because it is rile with errrs. We miht als istrust it with resect t a articular ersns number because he ften mves) S frm within a justificatr framewrk settin asie questins f vaueness an ineterminac eistemic claims will be sai t be eterminatel tre r false eenin n the facts f the matter rm within the justificatr framewrk we will sa that it is a fact f the matter that the ersn knwsr eras esnt tice that in the revius ararah I have nt sai that thins frm within a iven justificatr framewrk I have nl escribe what he will be a t deemed t knw frm within that framewrk. I have nt relativize knwlee t
96
Prrhnian Reectins
ustificatr framewrks I have siml escribe hw eistemic claims erate within such framewrks It is recisel here that I art cman with scalle cntextualist r ersectivist accunts f knwlee I nt hl an f the fllwin theses is ustifie in believin that p if is justifie within the
framewrk in which is eratin I ma en this fr varius reasns a I ma reect s ustificatr framewrk 5 ma be usin astrlical tables (b) I ma accet 5 s ustificatr framewrk but think 5 has nt use it crrectl c I ma rant that 5 has been eistemicall resnsible but think his runs have been efeate Nr am I cmmitte t the fllwin thesis II 5 is ustifie in believin that p if p is ustifie within the framerk in which am eratin Thats wrn t fr the b an c) shrtcmins are still ssibilities ma have use an accetable ustificatr framewrk incrrectl r 5 ma have been eistemicall resnsible but nnetheless efeate in his ustificatin b facts he cul nt be execte t knw inall an this is the crucial int I am nt even cmmitte t this thesis III 5 is justifie in believin that p if bases his belief n the justificatr runs that I accet usin a justificatr rceure I accet as aequate If 5s eistemic erfrmance satisfies these cnitins I will think it reasnable fr me t hl that 5 is ustifie in his belief but that f curse es nt entail that 5 is ustifie in his belief here is nth in secial abut m ustificatr framewrk T see the frce f this last remark cnsier what haens when we state matters in the first ersn IV I am ustifie in belevin that p if I base m belief n runs I accet that are arriate fr the justificatr rce ure I am usin This cnitinal fails because in claimin t knw smethin (an thus t be ustifie in believin it) I am nt relativiin m claim t
Epstemc Grace
9
the runs I ssess nr t the ustificatr framewrk I am emlin That I am in neither f these thins is clear because if infrmatin aears that either efeats sme f m reasns r shws that m ustificatr rceure was inarriate I will then lkin back sa that m runs i nt ustif me in believin what I i thuh erhas I ma still think I was nt irresnsible in thinkin the i urthermre I will nt sa I i knw t within that framewrk but nt knw within the resent framewrk. Of curse the ersective frm which I make this new remark is n mre insulate r uncnitinall rivilee than the riinal ersective In articular uses f knwlee claims the character f the us tificatr rceure invke will be etermine b the cntext in which the knwlee claim is mae. ut even if we invke ustificatr rceures in makin knwlee claims ur knwlee claims are nt claims t these ustificatr rceures The fllwin is crrect knws that if an nl if ustifiabl came t believe that p n runs that establish the truth f The fllwin is incrrect knws that if an nl if came t believe that n runs that establish the truth f within ie relative t) sme usti icatr rceure The secn frmulatin but nt the irst carries the cntextualist r ersectivist imlicatins that m sitin which is exresse i the first frmulatin es nt. I can illustrate the int I am trin t make thruh examinin an inenius cunterexamle raise b re ichaels t the sitin I am efenin. The examle is his the wrin mine. Suppos tht Smith is wod whth h bks sf To tst thm sh dvs t modt spd nd thn hits th bks qut shply Whn th oms to smooth stop sh onluds tht thy sf Lts suppos two thngs ths s good oughnd dy wy of tsting bks nd (ii Smths bks n ft sf Ths by pplying stndd podu nd by gttng th ot sult Smith n on th psnt ppoh b sd to know tht h bks sf Nt suppos ht Jons n uto mhni tsts th bks in th sm wy nd thn onluds s Smith did tht th bks sf Jons howv knows tht ths tst thought lbl in oughnddy wy somtims dos not dtt fulty bks
98
Phnian Reecins i th pistmi irrsposibiity o his prorma thik w ar iid to say that Js though it is tru that th braks ar sa dos ot kow this This ads to th smigy paradoi a rsut that gi th sam id a amatur a kow somthg that a prt aot
f aske what think abut this situatin wu sa that neithe Smith n nes knew that the bakes wee safe f even thuh the ae safe thanks t Michaes am iv t secia infmatin abut the e wa f testin bakes Anthe eate bectin cmes fm Sts Mca wh sueste that n m accunt whethe knws smethin eens n wh is makin the eistemic assessment m 's esective ma knw that but nt fm s. Thats wn What is iht is that fm his esective ma ant that has ustifiab cme t beieve that n uns that estabish the tuth f wheeas fm his esective wi nt ant this That ants smethin es nt make it s an eua that es nt ant this es nt shw that it isnt s This bins us back t the uestin whethe thee is a fact f the matte that etemines whethe an eistemic caim is eteminate tue eteminate fase M answe is that m anasis imies nthin ne wa anthe n this matte an this is ecise because nthin in this anasis eithe iviees efuses t ivi ee aticua ustificat famewks a that has been sai s fa thee ma be ne utimate ustificat famewk that uns a thes. Thee ma be a uait f ustificat famewks that un vaius mains f knwee. Thee ma be n ustificat famewk that stans u une the unimite heihtenin f scutin n fact this thi ssibiit stikes me as bein cect but that is nt smethin that fws fm the anasis f knwee caims have esente t is smethin that has t be shwn in etai b examinin vaius attemts t uce hishica theies f ustificatin hats the task f the secn at f this stu
's Hd o Say ina it is wth ntin that it is ifficut t exess the view am esentin in a fashin that is nt miseain caim t be in nthin me than escibin what we mean when we caim t knw smethin an (fwin Wittenstein) as escibin the stanas we use in emin such caims. Yet it is ifficut t state these mattes in was that nt suest a stn evauative cm
99
Epsemic Grace
mitment In varius laces Wittenstein seems t encunter the same ifficult nsier the fllwin remark ac 166 h diffiulty i to rli th goudl of ou
bivig
Usuall t sa that smethin is runless is t ffer a criticism its t sa that a run that uht t be resent is missin That is t reverse Wittenstein's int It is als as nte earlier mislea in t seak f inrin leitimate ubts since a leitimate ubt is recisel ne that shul nt be inre Talkin f ain hins o aned r sain that in makin a knwlee claim e amos aays asse moe han e have a ih o is misleain in the same wa All these exressins are ticall use t frmulate secific criticisms frm within a ustificatr framewrk an the require quite secific resnses It thus can be misleain when the are intene merel escritivel Unfrtunatel it is ifficult t fin alteative exressins that are free frm this ifficult
Summy of Part I I hl that the ther f knwlee in its traitinal frm has been an attemt t fin was f establishin knwlee claims frm a ersective where the level f scrutin has been heihtene b reflectin alne The matic sketic rivilees this heihtene ersective an then skirtin selfrefutatin claims that nthin is knwn The Prrhnists as I have escribe them) resist bth resnses because the refuse t rivilee the hilshical ersective that the matic sketics an their nents share When the h theticall enter the hilshical ersective the will be incline t sa that nthin is knwn ere the siml rert hw thins strike them r the mst art hwever the will ccu a nrmal ersective where sketical scenaris an remte an nt s remte efeaters are siml inre The will then seak an act in cmmn sensible was One wa f shwin that this Prrhnian escritin f ur eis temic situatin is wrn wul be t shw that certain knwlee claims can be certifie in the face f unresticte levels f scutin This wul nt be a articularl interestin result if this cul be ne nl fr a small number f brin knwlee claims We want mre frm the eistemlist than a bare refutatin f sketicism We want a vinicatin f a suitabl wie rane f knwlee claims that are wrth makin The attemts t carr ut such a rram are
100
Prrhnan Reectns
cal his usiicain n h scn pa is su will agu ha h is lil pspc ha such a pam can b cai u succssull u b uning his lagl ngaiv pjc l m lis wha ak b h psiiv suls his inquir hus a. hink hav givn an accun knwlg claims ha is a qua in h llwing was ( 1 n nl avis Gi pblms bu als givs us a cc iagnsis h igins hs pblms. Divaivl i xplains wh iscussins Gi pblms hav akn h m h hav. s his wihu gnatng skp ical pblms. s n gna skpical pblms bcaus such pblms pn n pivilging unsic lvls scuina mv qui inpnn h analsis hav psn Divaivl h analsis xplains wh un cain cicumsancs skp ical ubs can hav gnuin c hugh aking avanag h shiing lvls scuin ala psn in u cmmn jusiica r pacics
Ne Fo a itial eamiatio of tasedetal agumets see touds "asedetal Agumets (968 We Wittgestei speaks of logi i te fial setee e is usg tis tem i a taditioally wide sese tat iludes amog ote tigs teoy of meaig Wittgestei sometimes uses te tem gamma i tis wide sese as wel e efeee to anther aitmeti is pesumaby iteded to ilustate te poit tat eve sometig as seemigy ualte abe as aitmeti as oeet alteatives ad teefoe at bottom ests o a kid of bute aeptae as wel 3 We migt add tat tis is ot ueasoable sie ofte te tasa tio osts of eimiatig a egitimate doubts ae ige ta te peaties iued by makig fauty ommitmets wi sometimes at least a simpy be take bak ad adjustmets made l etu to tis poit 4 e passage otiues "Fo to say oe kows oe as a pai meas otig o may tis may seem a peulia way fo Wittgestei to illus tate is poit fo is ain tat it is meaigess to asset tat oe kows oe as a pai fa fom beig meaigless may seem a paadigm of kowl edge We a at east see wat Wittgestei was up to if we eal tat it was is view tat fistpeso utteaes of pai wee ot assetios tat a pai ad oued but ate epessios of tat pai ats wy Wittgestei tougt it made o sese to ask a peso to podue is easos fo sayig e is i pai is may ot be a pesuasiv aout of te way i wi fist peso utteaes of pai futio but at least it eplais wy Wittgestei tougt te lustatio apt
Eisemic Grace
101
Detske would dey ts Wttgeste mgt ae as well se e eld ute epltly tat skeptal doubts ae meagless s s ot a ew I sae wt Wttgeste I wl etu to ts top Pat II of ts study 6 Ill goe te Boou poblem tat mgt ase f also belees fu te tgs tat would udeut s justfato 7 s s ot a selfsealg (ad ee a empty) demad fo I mgt ome to see o my ow tes tat a lam of me s ot justfed o te gouds tat I ae used to suppot t
A ppendix A he Lottery Paradox and the Prefae Paradox
The accun f knwlege claims in Pa I beas in ineesing was n he scalle le an peface paaxes. will begin b examining he le paax.
Te Lottey Paadox The le paax emeges fm eflecins f he fllwing kin Since ms f u empiical knwlege claims ae inucivel base hei pbabili picall falls sh f 1 I seems hen ha we ae willing sa ha smehing cuns as empiical knwlege p vie he level f pbabili is suiabl high . u hweve high we fix he suiable level f pbabili i is pssible shw ha fixing he pbabili a ha level leas paaxical esuls. T see his suppse being ve cauius we cun smehing as empiical knwlege nl if i has n me han ne chance in en millin f being false. Nex imagine a le cnaining en millin ickes whee ne will win an each has an equal chance f winning. Une hese cniins icke # has n me han ne chance in en millin f winning Theefe given he abve sipulains i fllws that we kn that th tet wll t w Th ame easning hls f each f hese en millin ickes s we seem knw f ah f hem ha i will lse an hence ha a f hem will lse. Schemaicall We knw ha icke # will lse. We knw ha icke # will lse.
W knw ha icke # will lse Theefe
102
ed
103
We knw that tckets an an an 0000000 w se We knw that thats a the tckets there are. Therefre: We knw that a the tckets w s e Ths rest f crse s araxca fr we cannt knw that a the tckets w se snce we knw frm the set f the exame that t s fase that a the tckets w se r resnse t ths arax w en n whether we () cntne t h that we knw f each tcket that t w se r () ve ths () If we cntne t h that we knw f each f the tckets that t wl se then t seems there are n tw was t av the ara x rst enn the rnce f csre fr knwee ne c reject the fna nference n the arment that s We knw that tckets an an . . . an 0000000 w se We knw that thats a the tckets there are Therefre We knw that a the tckets w se. Ths strkes me as eserate n tsef an n an case have area are that there are n reasns fr abannn the rnce f csre fr knwn mcatn. A mre nterestn sestn s that we abann the scae cnnctn rnce r rnce f ameratn) fr knwee name we ve the fwn rnce: K Kq Kt) K( q . . t) f crse we sh exect ths rnce t fa n a rbabstc arach t emrca knwee snce the cnjnctn f tw rstns each wth a stab hh eve f rbabt nee nt tsef ave stab hh eve f rbabt t cnt as knwee he ffct wth ths stn s that the cnjnctn rnce seems bvs crrect an anne mresse wth ths ma take the necesst f enn t as aeqate rns fr rejectn rbabstc accnts f knwee. ) he secn man strate fr avn the tter arax s t ve the cam that we n fact knw f each f the tckets that t w se. We nt knw that tcket #1 w se becase we have been t that t has sme chance f wnnn In the anae
104
Phnan Rctns
f th thy psnt in this wk w nt knw that tikt # will ls sin bing tl that th a nin millin nin hun nintynin thusan nin hun nintynin hans in tn millin that it will ls s nt stablish th tuth f th laim that it will ls I think this staightfwa spns squas with mmn pinin n this matt. Th is hwv a iffiulty with this staightfwa slu tin it sms that w smtims laim t knw things whn th pbability f thi nt bing tu thugh mt is n m mt than th pbability that a patiula tikt will ls in th ltty I nt knw hw t stimat it but it sms t m that th pbability that I spk t Dtsk in his ffi ath than t a twin bth ul b f th sam as th pbability that tikt #1 will nt ls I f nt w an a m tikts t th ltty. w is it thn that I knw that it was Dtsk wh was in his ffi but nt knw that tikt #1 will ls Th a tw ways w might al with this pblm iia) an ty t fin sm way f spaating th ass that xplains why w fail t knw in th ltty as but knw in th Dtsktwin as iib w an abann th laim that w knw in th Dtsktwin as iia A tmpting way t pusu th fist lin is t laim that knwlg is nt ti t pbability but ath t smthing lik xpt valu. Whn th payff is high nugh it may b asnabl t buy a tikt in a ltty an it s sm stang t say that it is asnabl t buy a tikt whn yu knw yu will ls ut I nt think this is th t iansis f th ltty paax f my intuitin nt hang whn th pbabilitis stay th sam an th payff is u t a pnny t nthing Evn whn it bms whlly unasnabl f m t buy a tikt lativ t xpt valus it still stiks m that I nt knw that I will ls. iib fltins in hapt nning lvls f sutiny suggst that w apt th sn appah an t th laim that w pssss knwlg in ass wh u ans f bing wng a n a pa with th pbability that a patiula tikt will ls Thus nning th Dtsktwin xampl n th pssibility f an intial twin has bn intu thn I at last am unwilling t say that I knw it was Dtsk whm I saw Th iffn btwn th ltty xampl an th Dtsktwin xampl is that in th ltt xampl a hightn lvl f sutiny is tigg by patial nsiatins ning th asnablnss f a wag in th Dtsktwin xampl it is tigg by nthing m than fltin n an unxlu fating pssibility
105
ppend
etuin to our ornal question How s t then that I know that it was Dretske who was n his offce but o not know that tcket # 1 will lose?" we now see that it was bal ut Once the level of scrutn is stake at the same levels we ive u the claim to know n both cases
The Prefce Prdo obert Stalnaker offers the followin staement of the reface araox I hs peae to hs hstoal aatve the autho admts that he has udoubtedly made some mstakesthat some o the state mets he made hs aatv ae alse He s ot oessg to setyhe otues to beeve eveythg he wotehe s ust oessg allblty It does ot take eessve modesty to beleve that sme o oes may beles ae alse hs s oly easoable Yet to beleve ths s to beleve eah membe o a set o popostos that ae eoged to be osstet I these popostos ae o oed ad the oseuees aepted the esult would be to aept the tuth o evey poposto talake 1 984 92)
Stalnaker oes on to exlan the fference between the lotter araox an the reface araox as follows: he assumpto that hgh pobablty s suet o aeptae s essetal to the agumet o the lottey paado But the paa do o the peae does ot deped o that assumpto ad aot be asweed the same way It aot be plausbly deed that the autho acceps the tuth o eah o the statemets made the a atve o a t be deed that he aepts that at least oe o those statemets s alse But t also seems plausble to say that the autho aepts o at least ommts hmsel to ay ojuto o the statemets the aatve 2)
The ifference between the two araoxes s that the lotte araox conces knoldg whereas the reface araox conces ao nal apan jusd bl or some such notion Dfferent accounts have been iven of these concets but for our resent uroses we cannot treat the reface araox as siml the lotte araox unless t can be ratonal to accet someth be justfe in believ n it an so forth wthout that belef thereb bein true. Ths s feature that all these notons shae wth the ea have tre to cature in the (i ) clause in the analsis I have resente We can as I have note justifiab come to believe somethin or be eistemcall resonsible in belevn somethn althouh what is believe is false
106
Prrhnan Reecns
In fc if we ed e pefce pdox imply conceing epi emic eponibiliy en noing pdoxicl emege O io in my ve been compleely eponible in mking ec of i individl clim ye i wold be ieponible fo im o clim ll of em e re I wold be ieponible fo im o clim i ece of e wellknown fc oweve eponible yo e if yo mke enog ioicl clim e cnce e ge le one of ee clim will be miken. e conncion pinciple doe no old fo epiemic eponibiliy e me poin cn be mde wi epec o loey exmple. I wold no e epiemiclly ieponible o elieve icke # will loe nd be one pln on i belief. e me i e fo ec of e oe icke. I wold oweve be epiemiclly irreponile o elieve ll of e icke will loe e wold fo exmple welcome e opponiy o mke n evenmoney be on ec of e icke i will loe wee i wold be fooli o mke n evenmoney e ll of em will loe Agin we ve file of e conncion pinciple fo epiemic eponibiliy nd eled noion In con if we e ionl ccepnce on n nlogy wi e commiing noion of deqe gond o conclive eon) en ledy indiced e pefce pdox ecome indiingible fom e loey pdox Imgine e ioin ying qie explicily Fo ec popoiion in i book I ve gond deqe o ebli i r b do no ve gond deqe o eli ei conncion" Doe i ond plible? o o me. If i coec en e conncion pinciple doe old fo deqe gond (o conclive eon). Alog e conncion pinciple old fo deqe gond file o ndend e penomenon of ifing level of criny cn led mikenly o eec pinciple i cn led mikenly o eec e pinciple of epiemic cloe fo known implicion o ee ow i n ppen ppoe o ioin wo onely believe e gond eli e of ec of i eion elize e fc i book like oe ve been ceflly wien i ond o conin ome mike e now ve n innce of e loey pdox fo i eem e ioin deqe gond fo ec meme of e of popoiion doe no ve deqe gond fo ei conncion i el gge cony o w I ve id e conncion pinciple fil fo deqe gond o conclive eon). Ove gin i my ggeion i eflecing on e lmo inevible occence of eo in i wok will led e ioin o ie i
ppend
10
level f scrutin cncein the ddua claims he has mae fr this reasn he will revise wnwar his riinal eistemic assess ment f them. n ther wrs his reflectins n the almst inev itale ccurrence f errr will lea him t withraw his claim that he ha runs t estalish the truth f each f the assertins he has mae s the failure f the cnjunctin rincile is avie. suestin fr reservin the cnjunctin rincile fr ae quate runs ma seem imlausileeven eserate. That it is nei ther can e shwn takin an histrical wrk frm the shelf an enin it at ranm. reerick . eisers fine wrk he Fae Reaso cmes t han. On ae 6 we rea On Setemer 1 773 eimars ul sent a summar f enelsshns Auust 1 6 letter t aci." eiser cites the aci Werke V/ 4346 t su rt this claim. Wthut imuin the authrs schlarshi it is eas enuh t imaine hw this claim cul tu ut t e false. Perhas eimars wrte the letter n Setemer ut i nt et arun t senin it until Setemer 2. Perhas eimarus ha the a wrn. An s frth This is all sill nitickin ut it is re cisel ecause f the ssiilit f mistakes f this kin that hist rians will amit that sme errrs are un t have slie int their wrk. urthermre with the level f scrutin raise in this wa the histrian himself will have n ifficult in ientifin an numer f caniates as the surce f ssile errr. Of these claims he will acknwlee thatstrictl seakinhe lacks runs estalishin their truth thuh he is nt likel t cunt this as a efect in his wrk. The cnjunctin rincile hls fr aequate runs it es nt hl fr eistemic resnsiilit. One last questin Des it hl fr knwlee? efre we can et t the cre f this questin sme sie issues arallelin thse that arse fr eistemic clsure fr knwn imlicatin must e set asie. Take at ranm an hunre (r thusan) rsitins that knws t e true an cnjin them es knw this rsitin t e true? The ifficult here is that has never entertaine this rsitin an ma e incaale f ing s. t is als ssile that is willing t accet the cnjunctin f tw rsitins that she accets ecause she thinks ever inference is vali. T avi ifficulties f this kin let us suse that is a licall cmetent reasner an let us suse that her intellectual caacities are u t the task at han. We will als suse that she reasns quite exlicitl frm her knwlege that an her knwl ee that q t the cnclusin that she knws that & q ul there e anthin wrn with this reasnin? t seems t me that
18
Phnan Reectns
here culn f ha is crrec hen he cnuncin rincile fr nwlee hls a leas r cmeen reasners ealin wih r siins wihin heir en
The Conjunction Principe or Knowedge f hese reflecins are crrec he shw ha ne wa f ealin wih he ler arax namel reecin he cnuncin rincile fr exlici cmeen reasnin fails bu he als seem raise a ifficul fr he analsis f nwlee claims ha have resene Sae absracl he ifficul is as fllws. The analsis ha have resene cnains w clauses (i) an aequaeruns (r cnclusivereasn) clause which bes he cnuncin rincile an (ii) an eisemic resnsibili r rainalacceance) clause which es n The leiimac f he cnjuncin rincile in he firs case an is failure in he secn allw us ea resecivel wih he lery arax an he reface arax Tha is a nice resul bu unfrunael he analsis suess ha he cnjuncin rincile fr nwlee shul als fai shul fail i seems because i cnains a cmnen he eisemic resnsibili clause fr which he cnuncin rincile es n hl Furhermre he failure if i es ccur will n een n aribuin lical incmeence r an her inellecual failin T see he wa u f his ifficul we can recall wh he cn juncin rincile fails fr eisemic resnsibili. We saw ha cul be resnsible in accein an resnsible in accein q because each ha a suiabl hih level f rbabili bu wul n be resnsible in accein q because his cnuncin lacks a suiabl hih level f rbabili. We can nw reslve he rblem raise in he revius ararah siml b nin ha his circum sance cann arise if s beliefs saisf he aequaeruns (r cnclusveeasn) clause n he analsis have resene The aequae runs clause freclses he ssibili f such a iminuin in rbabiliies We hus arrive a he fllwin resuls cncernin he cnunc in rincile a leas when i is alie exlici cmeen rea snin hls fr aequae runs r cnclusive reasns. can fail fr eisemic resnsibili r rainal acceance) hls fr nwlee (r belief usifiabl arrive a n runs ha esablish is ruh) .
109
ppendi
Notes Kybug 96
2 At oe tme oud hs appoah attate My oeague Wate otAmstog depedety deeoped sma es a upub shed essay he ote a umbe o yeas ago Othes hk hae bee attated to t as e 3 Bese 198
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
II AGRIPPA AND TE PROBLEM OF JUSTIFICATION
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
6 Agrippa and the roble o Epistemic Jstiication
In he Outlines o Pyonism, Sexus Emiricus ers he fllwin escriin f Arias ive Mes Leain he Susensin f lief Th at Skptcs ad down Fv Mods adng to sspnson [of bf] nay ths th fst basd on dscpancy th scond on gss ad ftm, th thd on atvty th fouth on hypoth ss th ffth on ccua asonng That basd on dscpancy ads us to fnd that wth gad to th objct psntd th has asn both aongst odnay pop and aongst th phiosophs an ntnab confct bcaus of whch w a unab to coos a thng o jct t and so fa back on suspnson Th Mod basd upon gss ad tm s that whby w asst that th thng adducd as poof of th att poposd nds futh poof and ths agan anoth and so on ad tm so that th onsunc s suspnson as w possss no statngpont fo ou agunt. Th Mod basd upon atvty s that whby th objct has such o such an appaanc n aton to th subjct judgng and to th concotant pcpts but as to ts a natu w suspnd judg nt W hav th Mod of hypothss whn th Dogatsts bng focd to cd ad tm tak as th statngpont so thng whch thy do not stabsh by agunt and wthout don staton. Th Mod of ccua asonng s th fo ud whn th poof tsf whch ought to stabsh th att of nu qus confaton dvd fo that att n ths cas bng unab to assu th n od to stabsh th oth w suspnd judgnt on both. ( 49)
114
Prrhnian Refectins
e Pbem As sae in he nrucin will efine he hilshical rblem f eisemic jusificain as he aem slve he Aria rblem ha is as he aem mee he skeical challene resene b Arias ive Mes Leain he Susensin f elief sas nhin aains his wa f characerizin cnemrar iscussins f eisemic usificain ha ms recen wriers n his subjec seem never have hear f Aria an his ive Mes As we shall see he ialecical srucure f Arias ive Mes an he ialecical srucure f he cnemrr ebae n eisemic jusificain are srikinl similar n recen lieraure wha am callin he Aria rblem is fen referre as he infinie reess rblem fin his characerizain narrw fr he rblem ha resens iself is n siml ha f aviin a ba infinie reress; he challene is avi his reress wihu fallin in a ba frm f circulari r a ba frm f unusifie acceance nee hink seakin f he infinie reress rblem exers a suble bu srn ressure n he is cussin f we hink he hrea f an infinie reress f reasns as he cenral challene usifie belief hen heries esie heir wn ifficulies ma la claim ur acceance us because he seem eal wih his sinle asec f he Aria rblem f hwever we bein wih an aneceen hrrr f circulari an aeal an infinie reress mih recmmen iself as a wa u is imran hen n ran unwarrane ialecical avanaes bu insis insea ha a hilshical her f jusificain mus simulane usl avi invlvemen in a ba infinie reress in a ba frm f circulari an in a ba aeal unwarane assumin The Aria rblem ses hese challenes in an evenhane wa efre lkin in eail a cnemrar aems slve he Aria rblem i is wrh askin hw i can arise as a serius hilshical challene w es he Aria rblem ake n imrance? There seem be w facrs invlve The firs is a cmmimen a srn nmat rincile f eisemic usificain W K Cliffr exresse such a cmmimen in hese wrs mae (in)famus b William ames is wrn alwas everwhere an fr anne believe anhin un insufficien evience" 2186) A similar cmmimen is exresse b Paul K. Mser in rms f eisemic irresnsibili T acce a rsiin in he absence f reasn is nelec he cniive al f ruh Such acceance accrin he resn nrmaive cncein f usifi
rppa and Epsemc Juscan
115
catn s estemca rresnsbe" () Laurence nur makes essenta the same cam T accet a bee n the absence a [ reasn hwever aean r even manatr such accetance mht be rm sme ther stannt s t nect the ursut truth such accetance s ne mht sa epsemcally espon sble. cntentn here s that the ea avn such rresn sbt ben estemca resnsbe n nes beevn s the cre the ntn estemc justcatn" 8) sr an nur have cmetn vews cncen estemc justcatn Wth resect t emrca knwee ser s a unatast whereas nur s a cherentst but n ther cmmtment t ver hh stan ars estemc resnsbt the are n cmete areement ut rsm I ma use the term es nt b tse cnvert the ra rbem nt a serus chaene nrnte wth the ra rbem the ran mht ece n erkees wrs t st wn at ast n rrn sketcsm"an et t at that r the ra rbem t emere as a serus rbem he ran must urther beeve that knwee es exst r at east cu exst Ths s just the stance that wth mre than a tte brava man cntemrar estemsts take. ere s hn L Pck In typcal skeptcal aguents we nvaably fnd that we ae oe cetan of the knowledge seengly dened us than we ae osoe of the peses Thus [shades of . Mooe] t s not asonable to adopt the skeptcal concluson that we do not have that knowledge The atonal stance s nstead to deny one o oe of the peses n othe wods a typcal skeptcal aguent s best ewed as a reduc ad absurdum of ts peses, athe than poof of ts con cluson (6
In the cmmn wa seakn we knw a srt thns: ur wn names the catas varus states an the ke ut t s an atether erent questn whether we knw such thns r an thn) reatve t ran stanars. The assumtn then that rves justcatnast rrams n bth ther unatnast an nnunatnast mes s that we r cu) ssess knwee that cnrms t ran stanars The task a ther emrca justcatn s t shw hw ths s ssbe I ca ths the ran rject It s mrtant t see that the Prrhnsts themseves are nt enae n the ran rject r the Prrhns es nt h that t s estemca rresnsbe t beeve thns n nsucent evence s awas the Prrhnst sm takes the stanars
6
yrrhnan Refectns
he dogmais a fae ae and hods he dogmais o hem The yhonis nokes he ie Modes and simia deies fo diaeia pposes peifiay he Fie Modes pesen a haenge o he iffodian in he foowing way Two of Agippas modes disepany and eaiiy igge a demand fo sifiaion by eeaing ha hee ae ompeing aims oneing he nae of he wod we peeie Gien his ompeiion i wod be episemiay iesponsibe fo he iffodian o hoose thut agumnt one of hese ompeing aims oe he ohes hs he modes of disepany and eaiiy foe anyone who makes aims beyond he modes expession of opinion o gie easons in sppo of hese aims I a hese wo modesdisepany and eaiiyhe hangng modes The ask of he emaining hee modeshose based on egess ad nfntum iaiy and abiay) hypohesisis o show ha i is impossibe o ompee his easongiing poess in a saisfa oy way f he Pyhoniss ae igh no agmen one saed an aoid faing ino one of he aps of iaiy infinie egess o abiay assmpion a hese hee modes he data modes e an now ompae he way Agippa empoys his hee diae ia modes wih a skeh ha ono gies of he opions open o one aemping o poide a heoy of empiia sifiaion rma face hr ar four an logcal possbls o h nual ouco of h ponal rgrss of psc usfcaon . . . ( ) Th rgrss gh rna wh blfs whch ar offrd as us fyng prss for arlr blfs bu for whch no jusfcaon of any nd howr plc s aalabl whn hy ar challngd n urn. () Th rgrss gh connu ndfnly "bacwards wh r or nw prcal prsblfs bng nroducd so ha no blf s rpad n h sunc and y no nd s r rachd ( ) Th rgrss gh crcl bac upon slf so ha f h dand for usfcaon s pushd far nough blfs whch ha alrady appard as prss . arlr n h sunc of usf caory arguns ar agan appald o as usfyng prss. 4) Th rgrss gh rna bcaus "basc prcal blfs ar rachd blfs whch ha a dgr of psc jusfcaon whch s no nfrnally dpndn on ohr prca blfs and hus rass no furhr ssus of prcal usfcaon. )
A simia passage is fond in Mose e hae hen a eas fo possibe aons of infeenia sifiaion infeenia sifiaion ia infinie egess ia sifiao ies of some so ia he
11
grppa and Epstemc Justfcaton
unusifie an via immeiae usificain The fur ins fun in nurs an Msers wriins mach up wih ias hree ialecical mes wih ne variain The share he mes f circulari an reress ad ininium an eenin n hw ne lks a i nur an Mser eiher sli rias me f hh esis in w cmnens r he a as a furh in he funainalis maneuver nurMser 1 rbira ssumin nefinie eess (3 irculari unainalism
ria hesis 1 nfinie eress irculari hess
h nur an Mser as usificainaliss are se rias Prrhnian rram f shwin ha usificain is n ssible bu he bh in heir wn wa exli he funamenal srucure f he ria rblem s a efener f a cherence her f emirical usificain nur arues ha he unacceabil i f ins 1 an leaves (3 as he nl ssible in fr vinicain emiricalknwlee clais llwin his his siive ask is shw ha circulari rerl uners an qualife far frm bein a efec is an eisemic virue in a ssem f beliefs The same eneral srae is emle b funainaliss f examle hishlm an Mser wh aain usin a cess f elimi nain arue frm he unsaisfacr characer f circulari infi nie reress an arbirar assumin he cnclusin ha sme beliefs mus be usifie wihu bein usifie b aeal her beliefs The funainaliss ask is hen ienif sme class f usifie beliefs ha are n usifie b her beliefs exlain hw he acquire heir usifie saus an hen shw hw hese beliefs can rvie a funain fr a leas a lerabl lare rin f hse her beliefs we cun as knwlee This hen is he eneral frm f a reaise n emirical usificain a cmlex isuncive sllism eliminain all cnenin siins fllwe b a cnsrucive aem shw ha he remainin rian me rerl uners an qualifie r vies a wa f slvin he ria rblem
Success Conitions on Theoies of Justication efre u an eaminain f hese cmein usificainalis heries i will be useful se wn minimal success cniins ha we can al evenhanel hem all. Fist h resenain
118
Phnan Rfctns
o a eoy o aon old be governed by wa I all all e prnple o phoopha ando n onormy w prnple e aor old pey a dederaa w bele e ake o be jed and w no or wo peaon e op o e eory wll be ndeermnae omeme a one qeneoen played downo a parlar eory o aon a we are ed n belevng very m le an we nally ppoed we were For example radonal deal veron o oerene eore oen ave e oneqene a we are ed n belevng almo none o e ng a n ommon le we nk we are ed n belevng e radonal oerene eor eld a e olaed ragmened paral bele o everyday le m be rn rog by reaon and erly ranormed beore ey an be aken p no a aboe woe were ed re bele aon rede A we all ee reen (nondeal) oerene eore ave mlar oneqene w repe o everyday bele og perap no n e ame exravagan way In any ae nle we are old wa or o bele a eory o aon wll yeld a ed we wll ave lle nderandng o e ope o e eoy n qeon I enrely poble a a eory o aon may n a be eqvalen o radal kepm. n addon o e r demand a we be old wa bele e eory o aon ake o be ed we an n a a ond e ondon a e eory ow n ome deal ow ee ame bele are ed I we examne e aal wrng o plooper wo ave proded eore o aon we nd a oen enog no ero aemp made n dreon For e mo par we merely nd elaborae don o eran andn e ee don o aneeden e are beae ea o e andard poon a andard dle a ave o be reolved beore e eory ana e ayng goege o e gon e oeren m ay omeng abo e pobly o mally exlve ye eqally oeren yem e ondaonal m ell ow a bele an be ed by omeng a no el anoer bele And o on e a ampon a domnae e ploopal lerare on epem aon a poble o ow a one own eory an ge o e grond werea all oer reman gronded en e bale won B wrong beae beg e qeon A plooper wo aemp o addre e Agrppa problem anno reaon n e ol lowng way ere m be ome anwer o e Agrppa problem and ne my anwer e only onepaly oeren anwer t
rippa and Episemc Jsicain
119
mus e he coec answe Thee s hweve n aneceen easn suppse ha hee s an aequae espnse he Agppa pblem; nee n s face he Agppa pblem seems que unansweable These eflecns lea a id success cnn ha we can place n an he f epsemc usfcan An answe he Agppa pblem ma n beg he quesn b assumng o agumenaive puposes ha hee mus be sme psve slun I s pecsel hs assumpn ha uneles he acc f efenng a pacula he f usfcan hugh shwng he weaknesses f s cmpes If he Agppa pblem has n slun such aleccal agumens have n fce Nhng sh f exhbng he slun wll cun as an answe he Agppa pblemwhch s wha he secn success cnn emans These hee emans n an aequae her f epsemc usf can ske me as beng algehe easnable bu f we examne he phlsphcal exchanges beween cmpeng epsemlgss we scve ha he ae ael nsse upn hee exss wha mgh be calle he Epsemlgss' Ageemen" n hl each he such sanas pehaps because s acl unes ha n he can mee hem The hess f Pa II f hs su s ha n fac n he f usfcan has sasfe hese hee success cnns Me sngl I wll ague ha n he f usfcan has cme clse ng s s n pssble eal n eal wh all hees f usfcan ha have been pesenehee has been ahe an explsn f hem n ecen easbu an examnan f wha ake be he snges epesenave samples f he man pes f hees f us fcan ma ceae a leas a sng pesumpn n fav f he negave hess ha hs pa f hs wk s nene fuhe
Theories of Epistemic Justificatio Thee s n cmpleel naual wa classf hees f epsemc usfcan snce he can va n seveal mensns In he le aue we fen fn a ba cnas awn beween hees ha ae neals an hse ha ae exenals Unfunael hs cn as can be aken n a numbe f was an s n alwas clea wha cnas an epsemlgs has n mn when she escbes ( accuses) anhe phlsphe f beng ehe an neals an exeals The ws nealsm" an exealsm" ms nauall sug ges w mans f becs hse ha ae n he mn an hse
120
Prrhnian Refecins
ha a n n h min An pismlgs wh s an innalis in his sns accps smhing lk h fllwing hss F b usifi in blving ha p h guns ha usif his blif mus b cnns f s min Th usual mivain bhin his vsin f innalsm is ha nl mnal cnns can pv h immial accssbl vinc n pvi a scu basis f knwlg Philsphs wh call hmslvs xnaliss picall c his pncpl This hap pns f xampl whn xnaliss cnas hi psiin wih asiansm I will sa ha a psiin ha is nnalis in his wa is an insanc f onoogca innalism Smims hwv pismlgss sm hav smhng agh in n mn whn h aw a isincin bwn nnal an xal his f pismic usificain Th a n cncn wih h nlgical saus f h gunsmnal as pps (pssibl nnmnal guns; nsa h a cn cn wih h lainship bwn h psn wh has a usifi u blif an h guns ha usf An nalis in his sns accps a pncipl f h fllwing kn F b usf in blivng ha p mus ase his blif n h guns ha usf Th man ha h usifi bliv bas h blif n guns ha usif i s chaacisic f his ha mak a sng man f psmc spnsbili I wll sa ha his ha mb a pncpl f his kn xmplf mehodoogca nalism Man philsphs wh call hmslvs xalss c his fm f nalsm as wll xalss fn cnas h psins wh hs ha h sa a vl inllcuals In fac vn hugh nhng ncssias his man philsphs hav bn nnalss n bh was an sm hav bn x naliss in bh was I is as s hw his can happn If n s a mhlgical innalis insising ha a usif blv mus ase h blf n guns ha usf an hn hls f wha v asn ha h nl hing accssibl a psn s h wn as ( h mnal cnns hn i s as s hw an psmlgs mgh bcm bh an nlgcal an a mhlgcal inals Epsmlgiss smms c bh fms f nal ism an hus bcm xaliss n h w was I hav n; ha is h hl ha i s pssibl f smn knw smhng n
Aippa and Epiemic uificaion
121
guns that ae nt menta in chaacte an that e nt empe b this pesn as the basis f the beief Thugh it is eas t unestan hw these tw sts f intea ism an the tw sts f exteaism ae natua cmbine I think it is imptant t keep these istinct themes sepaate. ist the ae nt awas cmbine. In the next chapte I wi shw that hishm seems t evep a the f empiica ustificatin that cmbines ntgica inteaism with methgica extenaism. Secn an me imptant ntgica intenaism an methgica inteaism geneate sepaate thugh amitte eate phisph ica pbems Ontgica intenaism geneates what we might ca atesian skeptica pbems. Put cue the funamenta task f atesian epistemg is t fin sme wa t estabish justifie beief ben the menta cntents that seve as the piviege epis temic stating pint This pbem is tpica pse in the fm f skeptica scenais f exampe escates evispiit hpthesis an ecent innvatins invving bains in vats. Methgica intenaismthe ctine that t be justifie in beieving smething a pesn must base he beief n the guns that justif itgeneates a iffeent kin f skeptica chaenge name the Agippa pbem. A the f epistemic ustificatin as I unestan it is an attempt t sve the Agippa pbem. This is nt the same pbem as the atesian skeptica pbem thugh the tw ae ften inke One cmmn wa f ting t sve the Agippa pbem is t take as a stating pace (suppse) incigi be beiefs cnceing immeiate expeience. The task then is t shw hw these beiefs cnceing immeiate expeience can be use t justif caims cncening the extea w." Thus attempts t answe the Agippa pbem can geneate the atesian pbem an then fai because f an inabiit t sve it. Since the istinctin between intenaism an exteaism can mak at east tw iffeent cntasts I wi nt cassif theies f justificatin in tems f it Instea I wi cassif theies f epis temic justificatin in tems f thei espnse t the Agippa pbem We can simp nte which f the thee iaectica mesinfinite egess hpthesis cicuaita paticua the attempts t neutaize then expit. Since we ae cncee with human knw ege it is ha t see hw the me f infinite egess can be mae inncent f skeptica cnseuences This eaves the mes f circu ait an hpthesis as the emaining ptins. heentists embace the fist ptin funatinaists the secn. In the next
122
Pyrronan Rlcons
chape I w examne foundaonasm n chape 8 I w examne a adona eson of coheensm Chape 9 examnes an ogna heoy eceny deeoped by Donad Dadson ha emakaby enough combnes coheensm wh (onologcal) exensm Chape 10 concudes hs wok wh som genea efecons on Pyhonsm
Ne lfford 89.
. Moer 985. ll page reference are to th ource. Bonour 98 5. ll page reference are to th ource. 4 Pollock 98 Soe of the orce taken out of th arguent n a note appended to th paage where Polock tell u The cla I a ak ng here a contngent one about thoe keptcal arguent that hae actu ally been adanced n phloophy (n). 5. Unke h dcuon o the en Mode attrbuted to enedeu where Sextu oete ue an nddual ode n olaton to dere keptcal coneuence wth the Fe Mode he explctly ue the n concert n the way I hae decrbed. (See PH 974.) . nother odern retateent of the grppa problethough agan wthout reerence to t ancent ource ound n hhol 98b 9. 7 See for exape n oldan aual Theory of nowng d cued n chapter 3
7 Foundationalism
unainais heries jusiicain aem sve he Aria rbem b inin sme wa brinin he ininie reress rea sns a nnarbirar ha eies ha serve his uncin can be cae unaina beies. I we se asie aacks n cmein he ries he unainais rram wi a in w ars (a he se unaina beies mus be ieniie an heir unaina sa us jusiie an b iven his seciicain unaina beies a urher cnsrucin is neee shw hw he can serve us i a suiab wie rane her beies
Forms o Foundation aism unainaism cmes in varius rms. irs he eries can var cncein he eisemic saus he unaina beies hem seves. On sme accuns hese beies sais he hihes eisemic sanars in bein inaibe incrriibe, inubiabe cerain an s rh Uni reaive recen a unainais heries k his rm A he her exreme we can imaine he unaina beies ssessin erhas n a w eree warran ha is he un aina beies y hei naue carr sme resumin ruh bu a resumin weak san n is wn ina we can imaine a siin smewhere beween hese w where he unaina beies a shr inaibii incrriibii an s n e ssess a suicien eree warran be jusiie uness verrien A secn wa unainais heries can ier cnces he manner in which he unaina beies e heir warran r a eas her iniia warran ein unaina such beies cann
12
124
Phnan Rctns
get thei initia waant fm anthe beief This eaves tw tins eithe the beief must be ustifing the beief must be diaey ustifie b smething that is nt a beief Pck cas this the iffeence between a xastic an a nnxastic vesin f funatinaism In the taitina nnxastic theies cetain items in cnsciusness that ae nt themseves beiefs f exame senseata ae what give basic beiefs thei waant In sitin t these nondoxasic theies sme hishes have maintaine that funatina beiefs whie nt ustifie b the beiefs ae nt ustifie b anthing that is nt a beief. Thus t the extent that such beiefs ae ustifie the must be sefustifie Funatina theies can va then with ega t the egee f waant assigne t the funatina beiefs an the can va in being eithe xastic nnxastic The can va in the was as we Thus funatinaism is nt a singe the but a cmex fami f theies he se tgethe b a cmmn stateg f eaing with the Agia bem ecause f this cmexit a cmete examinatin f the funatinaist sitinne esn sive t the extensive iteatue in this aeawu be an enmus task It is nt a task I wi unetake hee Instea wi cncentate n a singe vesin f funatinaism that evee b Reick hishm M basic caim is that hishms the es nt sat isf even cme cse t satisfingthe success cnitins f a the f ustificatin ai wn in chate 6 Shwing this with esect t his the wi I he vie a atte f evauating a vesins f funatinaism f each f them I think shaes at east ne f the basic faws fun in hishms the
Cisos Version of Foundationasm Reick hishm has t m min evee the funatinaist the f ustificatin in me etai with me ecisin an with a eee sstematic unestaning f the issues invve than an the efene f this genea sitin At the same time he has uce a the f such technica inticac that the eae acking Pvientia guiance smetimes fees ike e K stiving t each the caste ccasina catching gimses f it but awas being shunte int sie steets en this hishm ften intuces incies an efinitins an subte uaificatins f such incies an efinitins withut exaining thei uneing mtiva tin. hishms hish is ae cse t the vest Futheme
Fundanasm
125
he ften assins rinar wrs technica senses that eart in si nificant was frm thir rinar senses an then uses these terms t efine ther terms r a these reasns hishm is ften har t unerstan an eas t et wrn I wi raw the statement f hishms sitn main frm the thir eitin f his Theoy o Knowledge TK3 ccasina suementin it with citatins frm ther surces where he is mre exansive in his exanatins
Levels o Justiication r hishm knwee is a secies f justifie true beief but nt ever secies f justifie true beief cunts as knwee r justifie true beief t cunt as knwee the justificatin must be f the riht kin r eve This thuht eas hishm t intruce an extrarinari cmex hierarch f terms f eistemic assessment hishm tk this asect f his ther serius an ver the ears revise it numerus times smetimes in funamenta was Since his ther is exresse in terms f these eves f justifcatin we must examine them in at east sme etai In TK3 hishm istinuishes thirteen eves f eistemic eva uatin ranin frm the ceain at the t f the hierarch t the ce tainy false at the bttm T ive this hierarch a sstematic structure he efines each eistemic cncet in this hierarch usin the sine reatina cncet Sans is a leas as jusified fr as suchansuch " r exame the cunterbaance which ies at the neutra miint f the eistemic hierarch is efine as fws s counebalanced fo =Df s a leas a jusfed n belevng as n belevng he negaon of ; and s a leas as jusfed n belevng he negaon of as n belevng
That suns riht Sme f hishms efinitins thuh inteiibe invve eartures frm ur rinar was f seakin ere is his efinitin f the rbabe s pobable fo =Df s oe jusfed n belevng ha han n belevng he negaon of
irst rbabe fr" is nt iimatic Enis but settin that asie enera when we sa that smethin is rbabe we are inicatin that it has a fair chance f bein true hishms efinitin
126
yhonin Reecions
s no suh mon Ths s somhng w mus n mnd whn w noun hs m nd so y o mmb whn hs on s mbddd n h dfnon of oh ms hshoms dfnon of byond sonb doub s h foowng fom s byond rasonab doub for Df s or usfd n bv ng han n whhodng
E hshom xnd h noon of whhodng n hs wods A son my b sd o wihhol ooson h ovdd h dos no bv h nd dos no bv h ngon of Th ooson h God xss s suh h h hs s h hs s s ngon nd h gnos whhods (8) In oh wods f s mo sonb o ooson hn o mn on h fn onnng hn h ooson s byond easonale doub Th oo sounds gh Thngs bom obm whn w u o hshoms dfnon of h eien Ths dfnon dmnds os xmnon fo odng o hshom h vdn s h whh whn ddd u bf yds nowdg ( ) s dfnon of h dn ds s foows s vdn for Df or vry proposon q bvng s a as as usfd for as s whhodng q
hshom uss h fo of hs dfnon usng h foowng xm If s now vdn o you h h sun s shnng, hn gvn hs dfnon w my sy h you s s usfd n bvng h h sun s shnng s you n whhodng ny ondn o n whhodng wh s smy mossb (sy h ooson you woud xss by syng m no hnng) ( 1 ) onfss h fnd hshoms dfnon of h vdn nd hs uson of oy bffng E w w od h son whhods ooson f h dos no bv h nd dos no bv h ngon of h Und wh ondons w somon b usie n whhodng h� A nu suggson s h somon s usfd n whhodng h fo h son, nh h no s ngon s byond sonb doub Th, howv, nno b wh hshom hs n mnd fo hs h onsqun h no on s v usfd n whhodng ondon sn h dn of n don s byond sonb doub h hn dos hshom hv n mnd whn h ss of somon bng usfd n whhodng h wh h s ognzd o b nssy fs hshom nv
Fundatinaism
127
exains hw this is ssibe an it is nt bvius t me hw this cu be ne It seems then that hishms efinitin f he evient acks the transarenc we have a right t exect an if that is crrect we cannt reach the questin whether the evient s efine rvies the right kin f justificatin fr knwege. Thugh this strikes me as an extrarinar shrtcming in hishms exsitin f his sitin this is nt a int I wish t stress fr it casts criticisms at the wrng eve If his efinitin f the evient is inaequate in the wa that I suggest then erhas it can be suitab amene r erhas reace b a efinitin f anther kin The crrect characterizatin f the evient ma be an imrtant issue in the ebate amng funatinaists but the funamenta eman f Prrhnism is that hishers shw hw the eevate stanars the impose on hemselves can be satisfie Setting asie technica etais e knw bra what hishm is tring t e is tring t rvie a funatin fr knwege b shwing that sme f ur knwege caims can meet suitab high stanars f ustificatin. I nt think we nee t chaenge ints f technica etai t shw that he has nt ne this efre we rcee hwever it is imrtant t nte three fea tures f hishms ntin f the evient. irst fr hishm a rsitin can be evient t smene an et be fase hishm is quite exicit n this matter We have nte that a rsitin ma be ben reasnabe ubt an as fase. We wi fin that the same is true f the evient It is ssibe that there are sme r sitins that are bth eviden an fase" The reasn he gives fr this caim is instructive If we in fact knw sme f thse rinar things that we think we knw (fr exame that there are such an such ieces f fuiture in the rm that the sun was shining es tera that the earth has existe fr man ears ast) then we must recncie urseves t the ssibiit that n ccasin sme f thse things that are evient t us are as fase" 1) It is hen an imr tant feature f hishms sitin that it es nt cntain inee exicit reects what I have abee the iii ) r aequategruns cause In ine with this we might refrmuate hishms anasis f knwege in these wrs Knwege is evient beief that as haens t be true" r hishm ike Wittgenstein it is n b the grace f nature that we knw anthing fr n hishm s anasis beieving n that which is at east evient is a that knwege emans f us an that b itsef is nt enugh t guarantee truth In this ne resect at east the nePrrhnian arach sketche in
128
Phonan Relectons
p 5 nd om ppo n gmn ow v gmn byond ng pon ond f of om dpon of vdn kn f v omng n b vdn fo 5 vn f 5 do no ognz vdn fo m. om o n foowng o pg a person s ay usd n belevng a eran hng hen hs ay be soehng he an now s by releng pon hs own sae o nd nd s hs nernally sed n belevng a er an hng an he also now s by releng pon hs sae o nd ha he s sed n belevng ha hng? Ths oo s poss bleone he has ared he onep o epse saon. 7)
In pg om pk bo w pon 5 may b b o do b no ndon o w o b vdn fo 5 5 m a bf pon gond mk vdn fo d om on of knowdg onn nong opondng o my ) o pfomn . Rd off pg om on of mp fon onoogy nn b modoogy x On o nd w n p om fnd mpon o n on n fnd o dy by o w on fd n bvng Pp oy om o In od o b fd n bvng omng on m al o fnd o by fon on fd b nd no b omng on a aually don If w om n mnd w mg y pd pfomn w py Evn f don om mn n wy ffodn n xpd py vy dmndng d f of om noon of vdn og vdn nod g ndd of pm fon no op of om pm y ono go o w om dfn foow s eran or D Fr eve q beevng s ore sed or han whholdng q and beng s a eas as sed or as s beevng q
ny w n y I don g ny b n " noon of n n nd w n k om ov gy f no wo p w f g fo xn of bf n w n g bf n n mk o bf no n
undatnalsm
129
least evient If the evient is as he sas that which when ae t tue belief iels knwlege then cmleting this uble task will at least n his wn tems cnstitute a cnstuctive esnse t sketicism
Certainty and the elf-Presenting hishlms caniate f beliefs that ae cetain ae thse that aise fm selpesenting eties Since the accunt in is cmact an austee even b hishlmian stanas it will be useful t tu t an ealie suce whee his exlanatin is smewhat me fthcming n A Vesin f unatinalism" he escibes a selfesenting et in the fllwing wa Eve selfesenting et is a et that is such that if while having it u cnsie u having it then u will eieve uself t have it" 1 1 hishlm ffes an inteestingl vaie list f eties that he claims can be selfesenting f the subject wh has them One examle is feeling sa; anthe is thinking abut a glen muntain; anthe is believing neself t be wise; an still anthe ma be suggeste b the awkwa lcutin is appeae el t 1 With this as a backgun it is ssible I think t see what hishlm is getting at in his emakabl bscue efinitin f the selfesenting in s sfpsnng Df Ev popy ha nas ncuds h popy of hnng ( 9
ee the tems entails" an inclues" ae use in secial technical was but tute b his ealie efinitin an examles I think we can get the gist f what hishlm is saing withut ging int these technical etails. ughl f hishlm is selfesenting if it is full given n thught that is if thee is nt anthing abut it that is nt immeiatel accessible t thught Thse things that ae selfesenting we might sa have n cevices just as senseata wee thught t have n evese sies F hishlm selfpesenting ppeties ae a suce f ce taint" 19 f h popy o f bng s sfpsnng f s and f bvs hsf o b , hn s can fo ha h s F 19
hishlm cites saness a s ne ssible example f a selfpesenting et
13
Phonan Rctons I 5 ees sad then s at east as usted n beevng that he ees sad as he s n hang any other bee .e. t s ertan or that he s sad 9)
Br urnin h srsnin rr sus b Chshms awkwar cuin was bin aar " w mih ask whhr i is ru ha i a rsn s sa an bivs sh s sa mus i b crain r hr ha sh is sa? W can ask a ar a qusin cncrnin a rsns bi ha sh is wis I a rsn bivs ha sh is wis an bivs sh bivs his mus i b crain r hr ha sh bivs ha sh is wis? Wi hs bis b as usii r hr as hr bi r xam in hr wn xisnc? Th answr hs qusins is n uncnrvrsia. W can imain a hishr chanin Chishm in h win wa Whn I aribu sanss ms I am brinin his aricuar in unr a nra cnc an hus imici ompang his in wih hr ins Thr is n rasn wh I cann b misakn in makin such a cmarisn bwn m rsn xrinc an smhin usi m xrinc S vn i I am rih in his aricuar cas in aribuin sanss ms i n n b crain r m ha I sa I sms ha a ara in can b m wih rsc ng appad dy o9 r mr iimaica wih rsc sm hin aarin r us. Isn i ssib r m miscassi a snsain akin i b r whn i is n ra ik hr hins I cnsir r? I his is ssib sn m rsn bi ha I am bin aar r vn i ru a shr crain? Chishms rsns is ha his ss crain is n ssib in h nncmaraiv sns in which h unrsans aar samns In hir nncmaraiv sns aar wrs" h s us [ar] us scrib was aarin" (2 1 Th scrib wha mih b ca h hnmnica" cnn an xrinc ha s ha which rmains whn a rnc ha which is xrna is brack u To arre at what s sepresentng . . . we ust reoe the reer ence to the externa thngsto wne n "The wne tastes sour to e and to the appearng thng n "That thng appears red to e Ths however s very dffcut to do snce our anguage was not deveoped or any such phosophca pupose.
mvin rrncs xrna bcs i his can b n wu imina n surc ssib rrr bu his manuvr sms
Foundatonasm
131
unrespnsive t the pssibilit f misclassificatin Chishlm ecnizin this states the criticism this wa (a sayig "soethig appeas white, you ae akig cetai assuptios about aguage; you ae assuig fo eape that the wod "white o the phase "appeas white is beig used i the way i which you have used it o othe occasios o i the way i which othe peope have used it. Theefoe (b whe you say "This appeas white you ae sayig soethig ot oy about you peset epeiece but about a of those othe occasios But what you ae sayig about those othe occasios is ot cetai. Ad theefoe d) "This is appeas white dos ot epess what is cetai (4
Chishlm respns as fllws The fase step i this aguet is the ifeece fo ( a to (b We ust distiguish the beief that a speake has about the words he is usig fo the beief that he is usig those wods to epess What hods tue fo the foe eed ot hod tue fo the atte. A Fech a beievig that "potatoes is Egish fo apes ay use "Thee ae potatoes i the basket to epess the beief that thee ae appes i the basket fo the fact that he has a istake beief about "potatoes ad "appes it does ot foow that he has a is take beief about potatoes ad appes Siiay it ay be that what a a beieves about his ow use of the epessio " appeas white is soethig that is ot cetai fo hiideed what he beieves about his ow aguage ay eve be fase ad ueaso abe; but fo these facts it does ot foow that what he iteds to asset whe he uttes "This appeas white to e is soethig that caot be cetai (45
We can first nte that the cmparisn with the renchman i nt respnsive t the pint at issue. We can imaine the renchman in wrn in tw was e nt nl mistakenl uses the wr ptat" where he shul use the wr apple" he ma smetimes mistakenl ientif smethin as an apple (usin the expressin That's a ptat" when in fact it is a pear What we nee is a uar antee that this secn srt f mistake is nt pssible with respect t reprts f bein appeare t What we nee that is is a uarantee that with respect t appearance statements we can never cnfun ne srt f appearance with anther. The price f achievin that I elieve is unacceptal hih fr it amunts t remvin all tt cntent frm appearance statements fr in the nncmparative sense believin that smethin appears white t me I am nt rupin this appearance with ther appearances f the same kin
12
Prrhnian Reecins
an I am n cnrasin i wih apparancs f a iffrn kin Th upsh f his is h rucin f This appars whi m smhin lik This appars his wa" whr absrb msf in h prsn xprinc Apparanc samns hav i sms bcm wha w mih call smanical amic If his is crrc hishlms fns f h nncmparaiv sns f apparanc samns ma hav s hinn hm f cnn ha h wil b unsui srv a funainal rl In paricular w mus b l hw h ransiin is ma frm knwl claims invlvin nncmparaiv ascripins hs invvin h cmaraiv ascrip ins fun in ur vra knwl caims. Whn w xamin hishm's cnsruciv ffrs shw hw mpirical knwl has is funain w will s ha h s n arss h qusin. urhrmr ivn h rsurcs availabl him i wil b har s hw h cul iv a saisfacr answr i
Prumion is smims brahakin h wa in which pismliss b h qusin aains h skpical psiin h ar caimin rfu. r xampl h fifh chapr f K3 bins wih hs wrs I is primaril b mans f prcpin ha w knw abu h xa hins arun us Our snss smhw prvi us wih vinc abu h hins ha simua hm N hr f knwl can b akn sriusl ha is n aqua his fac" (3 9). M bjcin is n ha his passa bs h qusin cncin h xisnc an knwabii f an xa wrl fr hishm wil mak an hns huh i sms m unsuccssful) amp slv ha prbm Th passa is qusinbin in is aci assumpin ha w a in pssssin f scur prcpual knwl Th philsphical qusin aks h fllwin frm ivn h naur f ur snss hir fallibili c hw is i sil pssi b hav h prcpua knw w hav Th Prrhnis r nPrrhnis wi hav nn f his If ask hw ur snss prvi us wih knwl f xrna hins arun us h mih pin varius cmmn was f usin ur snss fin hins u A prsn can knw ha innr is bin prpar b smlin i ckin This is hw h wr knw" is us n vra if f prss har nuh whr h ally knws ha innr is bin prpar h wil simp rra frm h caim Th rrhnis s n ran h xisnc f h kin f knwl ha h pismlis amps vinica
Fondaionaism
1
ut ist this rather besie the int? If hishlm can vinicate ur rinar knwlee claims wuln't this ust shw that the Prrhnist is fainthearte in retreatin frm them when challene? It wul shw that but as we shall see bein the questin aainst Prrhnism is built int the ver machinery hishlm's ther This ccurs thruh his use f the ntin f peumpion which las a central rle in hishlms ther Uner varius titles it las a centralan questinbeinrle in a reat man ther cntemrar theries as well hishlm cites arneaes as ne surce f the view he accets aeaes knws that we cannt make an inuctive inferences abut exteal thins until we have sme pecepual daa abut such thins An it fllws frm this that if we are t have an s itive ustificatin fr what we believe abut the external wrl ur exerience must rvie us with a rbabilit that is no erive frm an inuctin" 6) This leas hishlm t attribute the fl lwin ctrine t arneaes Takng soehng o be F ends o ake probabe ha here s oehng ha one s akng o be F
hishlm fins a similar view in the writins f Meinn wh hel hishlm tells us that when ne takes there t be a tree then the jument that there i a tree that ne is erceivin ma have re sumtive evience" 7) inall hishlm cites a assae frm . . Price that will be articularl useful fr ur urses The fact that a material thin is ercetuall resente t the min is pima acie evidence f the thin's existence an f its reall havin that srt f surface which it stensibl has there is ome peumpion in avou o this nt in the sense that we as a matter f fact it f curse we bu t in the sense that we are entitle t s" 4 8 .1 The assae I have unerscre marks the basic eistemlical assumtin that the Prrhnist will nt rant Wh acce this ma that we are eniled t a resumtin in favr f ur senses? It is nt neee fr an aequate decipion f ur use f eistemic terms The mere fact that we fr the mst art) resume that ur senses are reliable is all we nee fr that. We nee the ntin f entitlement nl if we are tryin t in a eneral vindicaion f ur reliance n ur senses That curse is the very int at issue in trin t refute Prrhnism. What we nee then is sme independen reasn fr accetin the claim that we are entitle t the resumtin that ur senses are reliable Withut this
134
yhnian eeons
ndependent agument the esponse to yhonsm smpy as. I w etun to ths pont at the ose o ths hapte
The ansfer of Justification At ths stage the oowng boad ptue o Chshoms pogam has emeged. At the oundaton o the ede o knowedge thee s a set o bees that ae etan geneated by sepesentg popetes The oowng then s Chshoms st pnpe o epstem ustaton M I the popety o beng F s sepesentng s F and beeves hmse to be F then t s etan o that he s F Chshom has gven a numbe o exampes o sepesentng popetes. Some nvove ntentona atttudes; othes nvove ways o beng appeaed to Chshom woud hod that both o these nstantatons o M 1 ae te I s thnkng about a bye and beeves that she s thnkng about a bye then t s etan o that she s thnkng about a bye I s beng appeaed to buey and beeves that she s beng appeaed to buey then t s etan o that she s beng appeaed to buey The st exampe ustates a sepesentng popety that s ntentoa; the seond a sepesentng popety that s sensbe It s mpotant to see that Chshoms oundatonast pogam ees on both knds o sepesentg popetes. He needs ntentona sepesentng popetes to suppot hs bee that a peson an detemne y elecion alone whethe a bee s usted o he o not Chshom s qute expt on ths matte One an nd out dety by elecion what one s usted n beevng at any gven tme Beyond ths Chshom aso edts human bengs wth the apaty to ank the beesany two o the beeso ety eatve to the eve o epstem ustaton I Chshom hods as he seems to hod that possessng ths abty s a neessay odton o beng usted n ones bee then ths s a stong om mtmet ndeed It s aso a ommtment that seems on ts ae to be empay mpasbe I ths s oet the Chshom s deveopng a theoy o deazed ognzes not o human bengs Gven a theoy o epstem ustaton we shoud aways ask Does ths theoy demand ogntve powes that human bengs do not
135
ondaionaism
possess? If he answer o ha queson s yes hen he heory eads o skepsm raher han avodng Chshom needs l sefpresenng properes for hs poson o oun as a heory of mpal jusfaon These sensbe properes perform wo serves They suppy he empra onen for empra knowedge and hey suppy he erany Chshom beeves mus undergrd a oher eves of empra usfaon As we examne he way n whh Chshoms heor unfods w be mporan o keep n mnd ha hese sensbe sefpresenng proper es provde he ol onen for empra udgmens and rher hs onen s he hnnedou onen of nonomparave arbuon Broady speakng for Chshom he ransfer of usfaon akes pae n he foowng way We sar wh he erany of he sefpresenng f am appeared o redy (and beeve hs of mysef hen s eran for me ha am appeared o ha way Here he eve of epsem jusfaon s unsurpassed bu he onen of he beef s subjeve and hn Gven hn eranes of hs knd he ask s o show ha oher more robus judgmens for exampe ha here are wo hars n hs room are evden for me for f suh judg mens are evden for me and aso rue hen aordng o Chs hom hey are known o me The ask we mgh say s o rade hgh epsem quay for rher nformaona quany keepng he quay hgh enough o oun as knowedge whe geng he onen rh enough o oun as somehng worh knowng
Matral Estmc Prncls In he frs haf of hs enury phosophers ofen posed he foundaona probem as some varaon of he foowng ueson How are sensedaa saemens reaed o maeraobe saemens suh ha hey are apabe of gvng maeraobje saemens adequae evdena suppor? Aemps o answer hs queson nvoved gvng an anayss or para anayss or expaon of maeraobe saemens an enrprse ha proved whoy unsuessfu Chshom offers an arave aeave o hs anay foundaonasm one ha does no depend on an aneeden anayss of maeraobje saemens Expong an anaogy wh eha prnpes Chshom nrodues wha he as maial epsem prnpes whh he desrbes as foows A maeria pistmic pricipl is a picipl atig opistmic cocpts to pistmic cocpts. A xampl is, If a pso blivs
136
yhoia eecios self o be alng w soeone en s ceran for a per son a e belees self o be alkng w soeone Te aneceden of e prncple els us a e applcably of a cean nonnoae concep (beleng oneself o be alng w soe one consues a suffcen o epass added condon fo e applcaon of a cean norae concep beng ceran a one belees oneself o be alng w soeone
Chshom offers e suh maera epsem prnpes Hs aoun of he foundaons of empra knowedge s an aemp o show how hrough progressve sages he erany of he sefpresenng an be used o make evden ordnary ams abou he word around us I smpy foow hs deveopmen addng bref expanaory ommens aong he way MP If he propery of beng F s sefpresenng f s F and f beeves hmsef o be F hen s eran for ha he s F MP Aepng ends o make probabe The mporan pon here s ha MP does no say ha aep ng ma probabe assers he weaker am ha aepng ed o make probabe Beause of hs onras Chs hom says ha MP embodes epsem ommonsenssm raher han epsem onservasm 63 or our purposes s more mporan o noe ha he expresson ends o make probabe nrodues he noon of presumpon aready haenged) MP3 I f aeps h and f h s no dsonfrmed by s oa ev dene hen s probabe for Here he word ends s dropped hus repang MP wh an absoue am o probaby Ths srenghenng s usfed by he sronger demand ha s no dsonfrmed by s oa ev dene Ths s an mporan deveopmen for now he epsem saus of a gven proposon s made a funon n par of he epsem saus of oher proposons Ths sandard ha akes us from wha ends o be probabe o wha s probabe s some mes aed he negave oherene reron oughy f somehng s prma fae or presumpvey] usfed and does no onf wh oher beefs ha are usfed hen ha beef s usfied as we MP3 s an nsane of suh a prnpe for a paruar eve of usfaon MP I f aeps and f no s no probabe n reaon o he se of proposons ha are probabe for hen s epsem y n he e o
Fondaonasm
137
This is essentiay another aiation of a negative oherene riterion now using the set of roositions shown to be robabe through satisfying M3.) M If k there to be a n F an if it i s eitemiay in the ear for him that there is an F whih he takes to be F then it is ond onl dou for 5 that he is ereiving something to be F. (This rinie ontains the strong eistemi oerator pv ing-for Chishom, ereiving something to be the ase imies that it is the ase 40 ] This oerator aears however, uner the soe of the weaker eistemi oerator ond onl dou. The meaning of suh neste oerators is not aways easy to gras art of Chishom's task is to get the strong eistemi oerator out from uner the soe of this weaker one) M6 If m o mm having been F an if it is eis temiay in the ear for him that he remembers having been F then it is ond onl dou for 5 that he remembers having been F (This rinie onerning memory is as Chishom notes anaogous to M, whih onerns eretion) M If there is a set o onurrent roositions suh that a o the roositions are eistemiay in the ear for 5 an one of them is beyon reasonabe oubt for then a of them are beyon reasonabe oubt for (The introution of the onet of o onun popo on marks an imortant earture For Chishom, onurrene invoves the notion of muul uppo whih is stronger than the notion of muul ompil. We have thus asse from the use of a negative oherene stanar, firs introue at M3 to the use of a ositive oherene stanar The aim in M is quite subte If we have a set of onurrent roositions a of whih are in the ear then if one of them is beyon rea sonabe oubt this guarantees that the other members of the set are at east beyon reasonabe oubt This is a strong rinie that nees a strong onet of mutua suort to rener it au sibe. It is far from ear to what extent human beiefs an su ort eah other in this strong way.) M8 If ng ppd o is evient for an if it is eis temiay in the ear for 5 that there is something that aears to him, then it is vdn for that there is something that is aearing _ to him
138
yhoia eeios
As Chishom es us This prinipe es s o ondiions under whih g ppd o maes i eviden ha omg is appearing Meaphoriay i es us he ondiions under whih i is eviden ha somehing is ou , bu so ar a eas nohing need be eviden onerning wha his hing ou here is ie This prinipe is inended o give us no more han a reerenia oehod on wha used o be aed exerna reaiy) M9 aes here o b e an P and i i is beyond reasonabe doub or ha he is pereiving somehing o be P hen i is eviden or ha he is pereiving somehing o be F This is ompiaed and Chishom does no expain he om piaions For Chishom pereiving is ise a srong episemi operaor I someone pereives ha here is a a on he roo hen on Chishoms use o he erm pereive here is a a on he roo and i is eviden o ha person ha here is ereiving is perepua nowing Thus M9 i aeped aes us a as over he divide ino he region o proposiiona nowedge o he word around us M 0 here is a se o onurren proposiions suh ha a o hem are eyond reasonabe doub or and one o hem is eviden or hen a o hem are eviden or This prinipe is anaogous o M n boh ases a member o a se o onurren proposiions wih an eevaed episemi sa us guaranees ha he oher members are a eas a his same eve as we aying his ards unusuay ose o his ves Chishom provides no ommenary on his prinipe Is poin I ae i is o exend empiria nowedge beyond ha whih is urreny pereived or reaed)
Summay and Evauation n he previous aper suggesed ha any phiosopher engaged in a usiiaionais proe, e i oundaionais or anioundaionais, mus mee a number o haenges The posiion shoud be presened wih wha I have aed phiosophia andor ha is we have a righ o be od he range o beies ha he heory aes as usiied 2 We have a righ o be od in some deai how his usiiaion is seured Wihou he irs onsran he heory or a we now may b he equivaen o a srong version o sepiism Wihou he seond we wi have no reason o suppose ha sepi
ondationaism
139
sm has been refued nally 3 he argumen n behalf of he pos on mus no beg any quesons agans yrrhonan sepsm In I Verson of oundaonalsm" Chsholm 982b Chs holm begns by nong some hngs ha we now and some hngs ha we do no now There are eran hngs I now and eran hngs I do no now I an gve examples of eah e Moore I now ha I have wo hands and ha he earh has exsed for hun dreds of years Bu I do no now wheher wll ran here a year from oday and I do no now how many people now lve n Eas affrey" 3 Ths seems farly bold for f we an now for example ha he earh has exsed for hundreds of years hen presumably we an now many oher hngs of hs nd We mgh be able o now for example ha dnosaurs one roamed he earh Unforunaely hs s he las we hear of suh ambous lams o nowledge n A er son of oundaonalsm " Chsholm seems o be muh more resrve n TK3 oneng wha we an now In parular he seems o deny ha we have ay nowledge of fuure onngenes Ths seems o be he plan mplaon of he followng passage You may have very good grounds for aepng he proposon ha you wll wal omorrow and he day afer ha he proposon may be srongly suppored by nduon Bu s no vid o you or o anyone else ha you wll wal omorrow for no one now ow ha you wll wal omorrow ohng you an fnd ou oday wll mae vid for you oday ha you wll wal omorrow" 7 Unless Chsholm has a alendar sensve heory of nowledge he same po should hold abou hngs ha wll happen laer oday I seems ha no be evden for me now ha wll sll be ranng say wo mnues from now Speang n a ommon way people do of ourse suppose ha hey ow suh hngs abou he relavely near and somemes noso near fuure In denyng hs possbly as he plany seems o do Chsholm seems o deprve us of muh ha ouns as ommon nowledge urhermore o he exen ha nowledge lams abou he presen and pas enal proposons abou he fuure Chsholms poson may be even less generous n granng us nowledge There s a general endeny n hores of nowledge o drf oward sep sm whou anowledgng ha hs s happenng Chsholm n fa does no provde even a broad seh of wha he aes o be he sope or range of empral nowledge Sne we are no od wha edfe he foundaon s supposed o suppor s hard o dede wheher he heory s more sepal or ansepal n s endenes Ths
140
yonian efetions
omsson s a fundamena defe n Chshoms posonone hnk ha s shared by vruay everyone urreny presenng heo res of empra usfaon 2 Takng Chshom on hs own erms ha s onfnng our ds usson o he perepon of rees and pees of furnure we an urn o or seond reron of adequay and ask f he has shown n su abe dea how suh knowedge s possbe One user of probems eners on Chshoms use of he noon of he non omparave arbuons of properes Earer remarked ha we have o be od how he ranson s made from knowedge ams nvovng nonomparave asrpons o hose ha nvove he omparave asrpons found n our everyday knowedge ams Havng examned Chshoms asen o empra knowedge we have no found a whsper oneng how hs mgh be done f anno be done and he prospes hardy ook promsnghen Chshom has defended a very sma edfe of empra knowedge ndeed To see how sma onsder he foowng daogue know ha brd s a skyark B Auay s a resed ark Whaever a eas know ha s ke ha s fna remark usraes wha Chshoman knowedge omes o We erany hough we were gong o ge more han hs Chshoms use of he noon of he nonomparave arbuon of properes rases anoher probem ha he seems no o have noed Hs program depends n varous paes on he noons of dsonfrmaon and onurrene The frs s empoyed n wha amouns o a negave oherene es he seond n a posve oher ene es The dffuy s ha s hard o see how proposons expressng nonomparave predaons an ener no eher of hese reaons wh one anoher f he ranson oud be made from he nonomparave o he omparave arbuon of proper es hen somehng mgh be done abou hs probem bu as nod Chshom has no addresse hs ssue ' On a reaed bu dfferen maer Chshoms ombnaon of oherens deas wh a oepon of bas beefs havng very hn onen eads drey o one of he sandard probems for oherene heores Coherenss are ofen haenged o show why wo equay oheren bu muuay nompabe sysms of beef oud no exs The supposed naby of oherenss o sove hs probem s hough o show ha a eas some beefs mus have a eas some degre of epsem saon ha s ndependen of he epsem
Fondatonasm
141
ufaon beowe on hem hrough reaonhp wh oher beef I w u h probem wh repe o oherene heore n he nex haper here I hnk uffe o noe ha Chhom veron of founaonam oe no eem o prove an ouon o ohng n h heor exue he pob ha wo muua exuve bu equa oheren em of beef mgh have a her founaona ba he ver ame e of arbuon onernng efpreenng propere In borrowng from he oheren Chhom ha borrowe roube Fna I have one genera rm I fn man of Chhom maera epem prnpe nuve unperuave. In paruar I fn nohng ha movae he aepane of he epem maera prnpe 8 9, an 0 Chhom for h par ha no prove uh a movaon an for me a ea hee prnpe o no re on her own boom 3. The hr ue onon for a heor of eem ufaon ha no beg he queon agan rrhonm b makng he argumen epen on aumng faehoo. I remarkabe how ofen epemoog o h que exp whou a buh The foowng pemen ome from Chhom Thr is th ristotlian argunt to th ffct that o of th things I ustifid in bliving ar slfustify ng Th argunt is asir to ridicul than to rfut If y justification fo acpting a crtain proposition ruirs to go byond and to appal to a crtain othr proposition thn I aso justifid in accpting Thrfor ths ar th thr possibilitis ithr thr is an infinit rgrss; or thr is a circl; or so of th propositions I justifid in biving ar sjustifying. But th first two of ths thr pos sibiitis ar inconsistnt with th fact that I do know sothing Thrfor so propositions ar slfjustifying
The unerng aumpon of h paage ha beef ha we ake o be ufe rea are ufe. The ak o how how. rrhon a I have haraerze hem an am ha eran hng poe a reave ufaon ha he are ufe eave o oher hng we ake for grane The an ao am ha eran hng ofen k hem a who ufe Furhermore her feeng an be a rong a anone an n evera peeh he ma expre hee feeng Ye he hoan Hume aw h a Wgenenha h ene of ufaon an evaporae when we ep bak an examne our aual groun for akng omehng o be ufe The ufaona ee h a we for u faonam mp he aemp o fn phoopha reoner
yrhonan eetons
142
o he do ha has ee as o vaos poos of o eef y phosophy sef deed s emp o vew sfaoasm oh s fodaoas ad ofodaoas foms as a aemp o e o s ow wh sod phosopha edeas he oa sese of epsem sey ha phosophy sef has ake away The sfaoas ao who e he qeso aas he yhos ae sppo of hs poso ha ves he es aoo eve he oy aoof how hs ha we ake o e sfed eay ae sfed I he sese whh poo p ae seek sfao hee s o aeede easo o sp pose ad o h o assme ha ayh s sfed Ye Chshom ad may ohes osay make hs assmpo Fhemoe Chshom o oy makes hs assmpo a oad poamma way as he passae as ed; he aso ds o he eha mahey of hs heoy Ths s mmedaey appae f we exame Chshoms maea epsem ppes Se asde poems oe oompaave aos he yhos mh a he fs ppe M f he popey of e F s sefpese f s F ad f eeves hmsef o e F he s ea fo ha he s F The adoa yhoss dd o ee he possy ha we a e ea ao how hs appea o shoh hey poay shod have They wod howeve haee Chshoms ex epsem ppe ad he eh ha foow To Chshoms seod epsem ppe M2 Aep eds o make poae hey wod oppose aohe M2 * Aep skes s as mak poae Se asde ohe dffes hey wod ses a sma aea ve o Chshoms ema eh epsem ppes shod e ea ha Chshoms aepae of pps M2 hoh M who v ood easos fo pefe hem o he yhoa aeaves es he qeso aas yhosm I es he qeso aas yhosm he same way ha a moa phosophe wod e he qeso aas eha skepsm y assm he exsee of pma fae oaos o pma fae oods Chshom fa expy ees o hs ompaso o eaz he poems ases
Fondaionalism
143
Th s a undantal analogy thn btwn th logc o oal unt and that o conaton In sttng oth th pnc pls o oal unt w hav usd prima aie duty and hav contastd prima aie duts wth what Ross calld " asolte duts In sttng oth pncpls o conaton w could hav usd a n analogous tnology contastng prima aie pobabl ty wth what ollowng Bolano w could call "absolut poba blty ( 58
In wa w g call an nal crcs of a poson rlyng on dsncon bwn pra fac and absolu w g callng ap o ak ranson fro frs o scond a s, granng xsnc of pra fac usfca on w g argu a ranson o absolu usfcaon as no bn sown o of y crcss of sols oson ar of s for, for xapl y cla a sol as no sown ow coparav arbuons can b ad vdn n vru of crany of noncoparav arbuons dpr crcs s o callng sols rg o ak us of noon of pra fac probabl a all a I av argud alrady bgs quson agans Pyrrons sol s no alon n akng for grand noon of pra fac probabl or so or for of pra fac usfd s s a faur, xprssd n varous ways of a gra any conporary ors of psc usfcaon suc ors bg quson agans Pyrrons, and do so blaanly Fnally sould b concdd a any of spcfc cr css I av ad agans sols vrson of foundaonals do no apply o all vrsons of foundaonalsm, aloug so of or gnral crcss av wd applcaon In any cas, s xanaon of sols foundaonals sows a founda onals progra s uc or dffcul o proo wn Prrons s on and and ad pary o dspu Wavr s rs rlav o copng ors of usfcaon, ss o a sols poson fals urly n ng Pyrronan callng I a no acquand w any or vrson of foundaonals a dos br
Notes 1 ollock 1986, 9. 2 W could also agn an ontologcally talst vson o nondo astc oundatonals wh basc bls a ustd n vtu o standng
yrhonan efectons
144
n th rght sort o rlatonshp prhaps a causal rlatonshp to sothng outsd conscousnss. hshol, 98 9 Unlss othrws ndcatd all pag rrncs ar to ths sourc. 4. assu that hshol has n nd rcognd contradctons; not, hs account o th dnt aks n lss sns 5 hshol hsl dnd th dnt n an ntrly drnt way n hs arlr work rson o Foundatonals Usng th tchncal noton o a drct attrbuton, whch wll not hr xplan, h thr dnd th dnt as ollows "W ay say that th drct attrbuton s eden or a gn prson prodd that th attrbuton s byond rasonabl doubt and s on o thos attrbutons on whc t s rasonabl or hr to bas hr dcsons hshol, 98b, 9) dont nd ths dnton plausbl thr or I cannot s how th ll o ustcaton or rasonablnss) o a bl s latd by th rasonablnss o actng on that bl. But I wll not prss ths pont thr not only bcaus hshol abandond ths charactraton o th dnt, but bcaus, agan t ptchs th ll o crtcs too low r I ha bn hlpd by Paul . Mosr. S, or xapl, Mosr, 985, 4, whr h chargs hshol wth ust ths or o xtrnals Btwn th crtan and th dnt, hshol ntrpolats a ll o pstc apprasal h calls th obvious, whch h dns as ollows proposton s sad to b obous or a subct prodd that, or r proposton s or ustd n bng p than n wthholdng ( ) h rrnc to wthholdng aks ths dnton obscur n th sa way that th dnton o th dnt s obscur, but ro a purly oral pont o w, th top thr lls o th hrarchy can b rprsntd as ollows Lttng " Bp" an " s ustcaton or blng and " an " 's us tcaton or wthholdng, thn, wth th uantrs undrstood, th top thr lls o hshols hrarchy ha ths or rtan Obous Ednt
Bp > W & Bp B) Bp > W Bp W
Usng ths rprsntaton, t s clar that ths catgors ar such that ach ncluds but s not ncludd n th catgory std datly blow t ) t s tptng to thnk hat hshol ntoducd th noton o bng ustd n wthholdng a b sply to gnrat hs oral rsult, or ths noton dos not s to ha any ndpndnt ntut orc n spcyng th propr ll o ustcaton or knowdg. Wth ths oral structur bor us t s also tptng to ask whthr thr ght b hghr lls o pstc ustcaton byond n th cr tan. Th ollowng s at last a oral possblty Thr ght b so proposton that w ar or ustd n blng than any othr propos ton. Such a proposton woud b bttr known to us than any othr propo ston Dscarts hld that hs b n ods xstnc had ths status But dgss )
ondaionaism
145
8. A so of Foudatoals s foud hshol 98b. 9. Th us of th xpsso "bg appad to s a flcto of hshols cot to a advbal ath tha a objctual accout of ssg Fo hshol to hav a d ssato s to ss a cta way jst as to dac a walt s to dac a cta way I "A so o Fou datoals h puts th att ths way Th subjct who was sad to xpc a d ssato dos ot stad a stt lato to a oe that s a d ssato ath [t] s stt in erin wy way that w could dscb as "dly (opa "sh xpcs sadss ad "sh fls sad th fo suggsts sladgly that sadss s o of two thgs that a latd by xpcg; th latt suggsts o accuatly that bg sad s a wy of xpcg ( 1 5-1 6 Although hshol cas ov th phasg of th advbal thoy h dos ot xpoud o dfd t TK I do ot thk th s ay d to xa ths aspct of hs posto h. O Ths cucal wod sohow got lost 1 1 Ogally Pc 935 1 85. 1 . Fo aguts to ths ffct s Stch ad Nsbtt 1 980 Stch 1985 ad hak 986. 3. That all pdcatos s plctly copaatv s a bo th caw of all vsos of foudatoals Mos who dos ot accpt hshols oto of ocopaatv pdcatos ts o avod ths pob l by cocdg that th accptac of foudatoal blfs psupposs a udstadg of th wods that xprss thos blfs puts t ths way "It ss cla that satc foato s cssay fo blvd popos tos to b tllgbl ad thfo w ay hold that a udstadg of cta satc foato s a cssary codto of a psos g uly havg ay gvblfs blfs cocg that whch s gv] (Mos 1985 185) O of th stadad objctos to foudatoalst po gas s that od to ak th tasto fo foudatalst blfs to hghlvl ofoudatoalst blfs thy ust ak us of ofouda toalst blfs that supposdly thy a tyg to vdcat. Moss appal to what h casually calls "satc foato s a cla xapl of ths o 14 hshol 198
8 Internal Coherentism
Undr ading of cornis I will considr os oris a ap o avoid Agrippa probl by bracing soing akin o circulariy in a way inndd o avoid rar an o gnra skpicis radiionally suc oris av adopd wo usificaory principls . only ing a usifis a blif is a blif I only ing a us ifis a blif is anor blif firs principl aks cornis doxasic scond s paras i fro doxasic vrsions of foundaionalis (for xapl of kind a Cisol adops) scond doxasic principl far fro solving Agrippa prob l acually ss o gnra i by riggring an infini rgrss o avoid is infini rgrss radiional corniss ypically rc wa y call a linar concpion of usificaion For a cornis usificaory arguns ar no viwd as a squnc of sps las sp bing dsignad conclusion suc a ac sp is ir slfusifid or usifid by a rul of inrnc fro prvious sps inc cornis dos no allow slfusifid blifs for i a linar concpion of usificaion s bound o gnra a bad infini rgrss. Nor dos cornis pri wa ig b calld a circular for of linariy a is a srucur of rasons a siply loops back on islf For sandard cornis linar cir culariy is a bad for of circulariy. In plac of suc linar concpions of usificaion cornis picurs usificaion using suc apors as a nwork a s a sys or an organic oal iy of blis fundanal da is a is in corn sys
16
Intea Coherentism
147
s of bifs us sand in aionsips of uua suppo o is of is kind a ofn fd o as poiiv conc ois. Bansads Nau o Though and BonJous Sucu o mpiical Knowldg xpify is sandad fo a conc o is av akn wak o ngaiv vsion of conis invoks conc (of on so o ano ony as a consain o cck on jusifid bifs ypicay ngaiv conis dos no accp pincip a a bif can b jusifid ony by ano bif bu ods insad a a bifus in bing a bifis psupivy u innocn uni povn guiy Sinc as w saw in cap 7 psupion ois bg qusion agains Pyonis I sa no discuss us is cap is concd ony wi posiiv conc os In wa foows I wi no ap o suvy a ading vsions of posiiv conis Insad in is cap I wi ak aunc BonJou's posiion as psnaiv of a sandad inal i vsion of conis In nx cap I wi xain Davidsons ap o dvop a conc oy fo pspciv of an xali sanics.
BonJou' Veon of Coheentim H in boad ouin is BonJous dscipion of is posiion: In th fst pac ou concn s wth cohnc thos of empirica jstification and not wth cohnc thos of tuth (88 Scond I a concd h ony wth cohnc thos that pupot to povd a spons to skptcs (88 Thd cohnts s to b vn a dactcay ntstng atnatv th cohntst ustfcaton ust n pncp at ast b accssb to th bv hsf ( 89
aking s aks on a a i w can no fis a BonJu dfnds a conc oy of jusificaion bu adops a cospondnc a an a conc oy of u In anguag of fis pa of is wok BonJou is concd wi pfo anc caus (o pisicsponsibiiy caus) in adi iona dfiniion of knowdg. is as foowing ipoan consqunc fo dvopn of is posiion: ina conc of a sys of bifs dos no guaan a i is u a is i dos no guaan a i squas wi o cosponds o aiy Fo BonJou cospondnc bwn a con sys
148
yhonian efeions
of belefs and e world us be esablsed by a furer arguen a e alls a eausfaon eond fro e passage ed n aper 6 s lear a Bonour s oneed w skeps of e knd generaed by e rea of an nfne regress us s prary arge s Pyrronan skeps ne owever e aeps o solve s proble by appealng o prvae enal onens Bonour also enouners and us respond o probles generaed by aresan skeps a s e ask of s eausfaon rd s deand a oerens usfaon o be daleally neresng us n prnple a leas be aessble o e belever self sows a e s a eodologal neals as I ave defned s noon n aper 6 Bonour s en a eodologal nernals and an onologal nernalsfeaures a s eory sares w radonal versons of oerens.
andard o Coerence e enral ask for an epseologs developng a oerene eory of usfaon s o ell us que exaly wa s ean by oer ene oerenss ypally begn by sayng a o be oeren a syse of elefs us of ourse be onssen bu ey en go on o nss as Bonour does a oerene s no o be equaed w ere onsseny (9 For oerenss onsseny s a neessary ondon for a oeren syse of belefs bu no a suffen ondon We ge dfferen varaons on e oerens approa dependng on e naure of e onsrans oerenss pose beyond a of ere onsseny. A syse s soees sad o be oeren us o e exen a e belefs n e syse suppor or probable one anoer oees explanaory relaonsps are ade enral And so on A dsnve feaure of onours oerens s a nvokes vruall of e sandards of oerene a defenders of e oerene eory ave eployed ( A sys of blfs s cohrn only f s logcaly conssn. 95 A sys of bfs s cohrn n proporon o s dgr of probablsc conssncy 95 h cohrnc of a sys of blfs s ncrasd by h prsnc of nfrnal conncons bwn s coponn blfs and ncrasd n proporon o h nubr and srngh of such con ncons 98
149
Intea Coherentsm ) Th cohc of a syst of blfs s dshd to th xtt to whch t s dvdd to subsysts of blfs whch ar rla tvly ucoctd to ach othr by ftal coctos. (98 5 Th cohc of a syst of blfs s dcasd propoto to th prsc of uxpad aoals h blvd cott of th syst. (99
Asd from nvokng a pluraly of corncnancng rla onsps, a scond cnral faur of Bonours cornc ory of mprcal jusfcaon s a dos o old a a blfs mmbrsp wn a suably corn sysm of slf, consus s usfcaon o b usfd n blvng somng, a prson mus eogize a blf sands n s rlaonsp o or blfs or a las b abl o do so Bonour dscusss s nrnals commn undr adng of doxasic pesumpio. Furr or, as alrady nod, Bonour dos no old a a fully corn sysm wll b slfjusfyng For m, avodanc of wa amouns o arsan skpcsm us b by wa calls a majusf caon A pluraly of sandards of cornc a commn o doxasc prsupon, and dmand for a mauscaon gv BonJours corns s dsncv caracr
Immedate Prblems rcs of Bonours poson ar lkly o arg s commn o doxasc prsumpon and s proposd ausfcaon for cr csmand Ill look a m lar Bu dffculs brak ou arlr a ras srous problms for mos vrsons of posv corn sm, y ofn go unnocd Gvn s ls of sandards for cornc, w can ask wr any uman sysm of blfs as vr sasfd m answr may b no BonJour, akng a sandard corns approac nsss a formal conssncy s no a suff cn condon for a sysm o b corn bu dos ak o b a ncssary condon for a sys of blfs o b corn sms no o av nocd a s vry unlkly a blf sys of any uman bng sasfs s ncssary condon I sms saf o assum a all aur uman bngs old a las so blfs a ar nconssn w ac or or a las mply ngs a ar nconssn w on anor Of cours, nconssncs n on rgon of our blf sysm may no nfc or rgons bcaus y ar suably solad from on anor s owvr s no a rspons opn o BonJour gvn srong olsc commns nvolvd n s four rtr of cornc Any cornc ory
150
yrrhoa eetos
ha aps onsisn as a ssar ondiion or ohrn and also aks sron holisi dands will ild h rsul ha huan bins a no b usiid in an o hir pirial blis and hror a b wholl lakin in pirial knowld ohrn is hn in h or in whih BonJour dvlops i ar ro ruin radial skpiis poss i as an unanswrd halln his I hink is a undanal riiis o BonJours posiion and o a whol ail o ohrn horis ha rsbl i. ha is no o sa ha on Bonours hor huan bins ld nt possss pir ial knowld I dos howvr ild h sarlin onsqun ha or all w know w ar unusiid in our blis onrnin vn h os oon hins. vral rsponss o his riiis ar possibl I ih b rand ha png w ar usid in bivin an hins vn i trtly png w ar no. ha houh a onssion o huan rail is no onssion nouh akin h ohr nis sandards lirall w ar no vn loosl spakin jusiid in our oon blis h oon usifiaor produrs disussd in Par o his sud ha is hos usiiaor produrs h w auall plo in akin knowld lais o nowhr nar in h ohrniss sandards laid down b BonJour and ohrs. A hihindd ohrnis o Bonours srip an also lai no o b ond wih aual vular) knowld lais bu insad wih an idal onpion o knowld Bonour os los o sa in us his Any nonexernals accoun of emprcal nowledge ha has any plausbly wl mpose sandards for jusfcaon ha many com monsenscal cases of nowledge wll fal o mee n any full and explc way And hus on such a vew such belefs wll no strity spakg be nsances of adeuae jusfcaon and nowledge Bu does no follow ha exernasm s correc. Ths would only fol ow wh he addon of he premse ha he judgmens of com mon sense as o whch of our belefs uafy as nowledge are sacro sanc ha any serous deparure from hem s enough o demonsrae ha a heory of nowledge s nadeuae . . Thus whle would ae ver srong grounds o usfy a srong form of sepcsm whch clams ha he belefs whch common sense regards as nowledge have no sgnfcan posve epsemc saus a all no neary so much would be reured o mae accepabe he vew ha hese belefs are n fac ony rough approxmaons o an epsemc deal whch strty spakg hey do no sasfy. 5-5 )
Intea Coherentism
151
Hr BonJour undrsas probl Our ordinary knowldg clais ak plac wiin a pluraliy of disconncd or only loosly conncd usificaory procdurs For is rason y sand in sarp conras o olisic dands laid down in BonJour's san dards for cornc Byond is as alrady nod wa BonJour aks o b a ods dand for consisncy in oal sys of blifs is coplly dvasaing o our ordinary clais of knowl dg n passag us cid BonJour givs iprssion a our ordinary knowldg clais oug trtly peang no lgiia do av a significan posiiv pisic saus" Y on BonJours accoun i is ard o s ow is gnfant ptve epte tatu is ngndrd His own sandards oug o lad i o say a our coon knowldg clais ar ardly usifid a all and in nd us b rplacd by knowldg clais of a diffrn ordr radiional corniss of idalis sor wr ofn willing o ak radical sp of dclaring a sandards of cornc could only b saisfid in an absolu sys wr our coon frag nd and parial blifs av bn ranscndd For all a w coonly ink w do know w siply do no know sows a lack o f candor a BonJour dos no s a is own posiion car ris siilar iplicaions Finally BonJour could ry o avoid is difficuly gnrad by is oin coin o consisncy and olis by rlaxing a las on of s srong dands n a foono rarks a or corniss av givn up sric dand for consisncy pro vidd a oal sys is sufficinly ric and inconsisncy suiably rivial H dos no adop is posiion islf laivly w ig viw our blif sys as coposd of rlaivly auonoous subsyss wi paricular blifs finding ir usificaion wiin subsyss in wic y occur n is way a prson ig b wolly usifid i bliving crain ings vn oug or porions of is blif sys ar flawd is odificaion dos no owvr solv probl a and possibiliyand i is a ral possibiliyrains a a blif in on subsys could b inconsisn wi a blif in anor subsys r s o b only wo ways of daling wi is probl W can say a a pr son can b bo usifid and unusifid in bliving soing or o avoid is w can rlaivi usificaion o subsys in wic i occurs. o approacs would b unsasfacory o an psologis wo lik BonJour bracs ig sandards of pisic rsponsibiliy
152
yrrhonan eflecons
T Doxasi Pspion As notd on of th dstnctv faturs of Bonours vrson of cohr nts s a cotnt to what h calls th doxastc prsupton. ntroducs ths da as follows hav so far consdrd two of th lnts whch ar arguably ssntal to a vabl cohrnc th ory th da of nonlnar justfcaton and th concpt of cohrnc tslf A thrd ssntal lnt s th prsupton rgardng ons grasp of ons own syst of blfs ; ths s rqurd suggst n our cohrnc thory to avod a laps nto xtals 0 . h xtals that Bonour spaks of at th clos of th passag stands opposd to what I hav calld thodologcal ntrnals. For Bon Jour t s not suffcnt for an pstcally rsponsbl judgr to stand n so xtrnal rlatonshp to th grounds that justfy hr blf th pstcally rsponsbl judgr ust n so qut strong sns a hr blf on th rcognton of ths justfyng grounds h cntral rol of th doxastc prsupton s xpland n or dtal latr The Doxasc Presupon plays no drec role n he cogne sys e bu raher forulaes soehng whch fro he sandpon of a coherence heory s an essenal aspec of cogne practce: hough uesons can be rased and answered wh regard o parc ular aspecs of y grasp of y syse of belefs he aproximate accuracy of y oeral grasp of ha syse us be aken for graned n order for coherens jusifcaon een o begn (12)
Bonour's cotnt to th doxastc prsupton rass a nubr of dffcults so of whch h canddly facs so of whch h dos not. But bfor w xan ths dffcults t s portant to s that Bonour's xplct acknowldgnt of th dox astc prsupton s a dstnctv and adrabl fatur of hs own statnt of cohrnts Most tradtonal vrsons of cohrn tsas wll as any contporary vrsonssply tak so for of th doxastc prsupton for grantd It s o Bonour's crdt that h xplctly acknowldgs ts cotnt and attpts to dal wth at ast so of th probls t rass On objcton s dalctcal n charactr t concrns th conflct btwn coptng thors of justfcaton It ht b clad that Bonour's cotnt to th doxastc prsupton copross hs cohrntst progra by ntroducng a foundatonalst lnt. Bonour spnds consdrabl t tryng to show that rlyng on th doxastc prsupton howvr anoalous n a cohrntst poston dos not nvolv a cotnt to foundatonals Fro th pr
Intea Coerentism
153
spcv of prsn sudy s no n fac of any poranc wr Bonour's con o doxasc prsupon sus pury of s corns. Our quson s wr Bonour as producd an adqua ory of prca usfcaon If answr o s s ys n ray dos no ar wr s accpanc of doxasc prsupon yds an pur rar an a pur vr son of corns. cnra quson s wr s accpanc of doxasc prsupon undrcus s posonowvr a poson s abd. In fac Bonour acknowdgs qu canddy a akng s ory ry on doxasc prsupon opns o a skpca aack canno answr. H nroducs prob n s words: Bu dosn' Doxasc Prsupon or rar aspc of cognv pracc wc rfcs aoun o bggng quson agans a cran for of skpcs nay a for wc woud quson wr y rprsnaon of y own sys of bfs s n fac accura?" Bonour answrs s quson as foows Wa dscusson adng up o Doxasc Prsupon sows s pr csy a a cornc ory of prca jusfcaon canno n prncp answr s for of skpcs; and s ss o o coun n favor of skpc no agans (0). H n adds us poson advocad r ods a suc a vrson of skp cs oug crany unusua s p rfcy corn and us a woud b dsrab o b ab o answr ) bu aso concds a suc an answr s unforunay n prncp no avaab for a cornc ory" ( 0). I fnd s a vry pxng. W dsarng candor Bonour acknowdgs a corns canno on for of skp csa for of skpcs a cangs doxasc pr supon. I ss n a Bonour's poson as foundrd on Agrppa's rd od a of yposs or arbrary assupon If a's so n s projc as fad Prod r s nong o b sad nx f Bonour's ask s as ndcad arr o rfu skp cs. Bonour as gvn away sor y connus advrsng goods for sa ng asd bu no forgng s as crcs w can con sdr doxasc prsupon on s own rs and ask ow pau sb s. Do w as indvduas av a argy adqua grasp of our bf syss ncudng jusfcaory procdurs w us n va dang bfs? answr o s qusons s I nk no Our n a andscap s argy terra ngnta Hr a coparson w our ngusc abs ay b pfu roug ngsc ranng w
154
yrrhonian Reflection
a how o ploy varous xprssons usng h wh rasonab skl Y as h nrnab dspus onrnng h orr analyss of oon rs show w s o possss l sondordr knowdg abou how hs xprssons aualy funon lary w ar rand fro arly hdhood o for and s udgns n varous ways In hs way w o o oand varous usfaory produrs hs s how w ahs as Wgnsn would pu , s how h ga of udgng s playd Y w ofn lak an arula undrsandng of how hs usfaory produrs funon ro h prspv of BonJours anxals progra our oon ways of forng wha w ak o b usfd blfs wl s o b dply nfd wh ps rrsponsbly urhror, s no sply ha our oon usfaory produrs fa a b shor of ng BonJours nas sandards hy s o o nowhr nar ng h hr hus s o b wo grounds for holdng ha BonJour's hory yds rsus quvan o radal skps h frs fows fro hs on on o h ohrns sandards of hols and onssny h sond foows fro hs srong on o hodoogal nrnals
Standard Objction to Corntim h rss us gvn onsu y nral rasons for rng BonJours vrson of ohrns I gv h prd of pla baus hy wll arry ovr o al vrsons of posv ohrns ha hr ) ay down boh onssny and hols sandards for ohrn, or 2 ak a srong dand ha o b usfd n blvng sohng, h usfyng grounds us b assbl o (or assd by h blvr I hnk os posv ohrn hors body a las on of hs assupons and f ha s orr hn os posv ohrn hors ar nadqua hr ar howvr or sandard rss ha hav bn brough agans posv ohrns hallngs ha ohrnss rogn and ry o answr BonJour for xap ls us ha a su ssful posv ohrn hory us provd answrs o h hr followng obons () The alteative coherent ytem obection n appal o cohnc wll nvr vn bgn to pck ou on unuly jusfd sys of blfs snc on any plausbl concpton of cohnc h w always b any, probably nfnly any dffrn and ncopatb syss of blf whch ar uay cohrnt. 107
155
Inteal Coherentim
Ill call is uliplcoic probl The input obetion cohnc s th sol bass o p cal justcaton t ollows that a syst o pcal bls ght b aduatly justd ndd ght consttut pcal knowl dg n spt o bng uttly out o contact wth th wold t pu pots to dscb ( 10 8)
The problem of truth.
t ust b sohow shown that jus
tcaton as concvd by th cohnc] thoy s truthonduive that on who sks justd bls s at last lkly to nd tu ons Th objcton s sply that a cohnc tho wll b unabl to accoplsh ths pat o th pstologcal task unlss t also adopts a cohnc thoy o tuth and th dalstc taphyscs whch gos along wth t ( 089
If a sloga is w ig call is a for herentism
witht idealsm Boours s ragy is o bgi wi ipu objcio a us is rspos o a objcio as basis for rspoig o or wo
Coerence and Observation Wa a corc ory s i orr o avoi pirical vacuiy is so ki of co a will srv as a cck o blifs wii sys of blifs Boor ps i is way Wa is o aswr ipu obcio spakig vry iiivly for o is blifs wos assriv co is o siply a ifrr proc of rs of sys a wic ca us cosiu a ip cck o a sys ( 3 ). I is prcisly is a a corags pilosoprs i ircio of fouaioalis Fouaioalis is of cours rjc by coriss sic, for o pirical blif is ir slfjusifyig or iialy jusifi o coriss s o av rac a ipass. Wa y s o is soig lik fouaioaliss blifs o giv ir oris pirical co bu i is a cral faur of ir posiio o y a suc fouaioal blifs xis Boor aps o avoi is ipass by iroucig a coris corar of faioaliss basic blifs. c blifs ar basic i a y ase wiou big ifrr fro ay or blifs. Boour calls suc a blif a gnitvel spntanes belief wic scribs as follows [I os o] rsul fro ay . sor of libraiv or raiociaiv procss wr xplici or iplici
156
yrrhnian Reflectin
Ra i siply ous o siks in a ann wi is bo involunay and qui oiv 7 Ring vn ilds vsion of foundaionalis BonJou dos no say a s sponanous blifs a o any dg slf usifid o idialy usifid us y anno n ino sys as usifiaoy piss s sponanous blifs n ino usifiaoy fawok in an indi way suggsd fis I bliv by Wilfid llas. 2 I is the fat that thee beef no i puaiv waan a svs oniss puposs. asis way o xplain is oy is o sa i fis naivly n anspos i ino a vsion suiabl fo inlusion in a on oy is in fa s ow BonJou pods) I look ou y window and s a fy ossing ov fo Mnaggio Wiou fling on a I sponanously fo blif a is vn is ak ing pla ali a I anno always us y ys bu noing in psn iusans iggs su suspiions suppos o ak i fo gand) a iusans a noal a is y a of kind w y snss pfo liably oug I ay no av fld on a aoding o BonJou y blif is usifid in viu of soundnss of an agun aving follow ing pan hae a cognely sponaneous belef ha whch s of knd K ondons oban. (3 ognely sponaneous beefs of knd K n condons are ery lkely o be rue. Therefore my belef ha s ery lkely o be rue. Therefore (probably (3
Fo BonJou availabiliy of fis pis ss o n doxasi psupion abiliy o ogni ogniivly sponanous blifs as ogniivly sponanous is fo BonJou a nssay ondiion fo ning ino pai of onis usifiaion. Boowing fo llas ffs following dfns of sond nd id piss hnk ha s correc o say ha for a belef o be genunely obseraonal reures ha be obecey relable . . Bu of course he wouldbe obserer has no epsemologcally unproblem ac access o such objece relably, and hae already rejeced he eernals appeal o facs beyond he ken of he beeer Thus he mmedae concern of a coherence heory of usfcaon mus be relaby as udged from whn he person's sysem of beefs 3
Intea Cherentsm
157
A frs sgh BonJours sragy ay s coplly unsas facory I ss on a par wh convcs plannng an scap whr on of h crcal pars of h plan placs on of h ousd h prson hs howvr s o sundrsand wha BonJour s apng o achv In h prsn conx BonJour s no ryng o sab lsh corrlaon or corrspondnc bwn a sys of blfs and a raly ousd h s rng o solv h npu probl H s ry ng o show how a cohrns progra can hav a sgnfcan obsr vaonal coponn a all Hs answr o that probl s ha h occurrnc of cognvly sponanous blfs oghr wh an inta systematic accoun of rlably cras a sys of blfs capabl of rprsnng (hr ruly or falsly a world ousd H furhr clas ha s prarly wh hs obsrvaonal blfs ha ohr blfs us cohr n ordr o b usfd All hs s ncly su ard n h followng passag: Rlaiv o his gasp of h doxasic pspion] i is possi bl o idnify cain blifs as cogniivly sponanos; and aso o drin ha cain classs of sch sponanos blifs a a udged frm thin the ytem liabl ha is likly o b . Sch blifs will hn alify, jdging fo wihin h sys as obsraional and i is piaily wih hs obsvaional blifs ha oh blis s coh in od o b sifid ( 18
A fw pags lar h srnghns hs dand In ordr for h blfs of a cognv sys o b vn canddas for prcal us fcaon ha sys us conan laws arbung a hgh dgr of rlably o a rasonabl vary of cognvly sponanous blfs hs rqurn I wll rfr o as h Obsevatin Reqiement" ( 14 1 hn rflcng hs al for psc rsponsbly h adds: A usr of a sys us ak a rasonabl ffor o sk ou rlvan possbly conflcng obsrvaons f hs blfs ar o b u sfd (142) Havng nroducd h obsrvaon rqurn BonJour dclars h npu probl solvd hus undrsood h Obsrva on Rqurn ffcvly guarans ha a cognv sys whch sasfs wll cv a las apparn npu fro h world and hnc ha prcal usfcaon wll no dpnd rly on h nal rlaons of a sac blf sys; hus provds h basc answr o obcon (II ( 1 42 I hav srous rsrvaons abou hs par of BonJours progra bcaus as I hav alrady ndcad I hnk h grasp of h sys of blfs dands s an psologss yh Insad of prssng
158
yhonan Refleton
s poin again will exane e way in wc Bonou aeps o use e obsevaional equeen o answe e wo eainng sandad obecions o coeens. ee wll be wo seps n s defense. e fs is inended o sow a a syse a sasfies e obsevaonal equeen can povide a nq epesenaion of an exeal ealiyus solvng e ulplecoce poble e second sep s nended o sow a a epesenaon a is unique n s way s vey likely o be ue of an xtal ealyus solvng e u poble
The MultpleChoce Problem Wa I ave called e ulplecoce poble akes e followng fo Isn i possibe fo ee o be a eas wo incopaibe sys es of belef suc a eac ees e obsevaonal equeen and e syses ae equally coeen In esponse BonJou acknowledges a wo copeng syses ay be ed n e coeence deby a soe paicula e bu en adds a e os a i sees easonable o expec of an epseological accoun is a ake possble fo suc es o be boken n th lng n" 44) a oweve sply nves a fue queson Wa guaanees a es wll be boken n e long un BonJous esponse povides anoe eakable exaple of an aguen a blaanly begs e quesion agains Pyons Once e possibily of obsevaonal npu s appeciaed s no longe clea wy s cla [a uliple coces of syses ay always exs] sould be acceped r at lat wh t thght t b
an mr plabl n rlatn t a hrn thr than t n rlatn t thr thr f nwldg" (144 epass added) e alcied poon of s passage s of couse quesonbeggng As long as skepics s in e feld of copeios one canno ague, as Bonou ee agues a a cicis a apples equally o al eoes of usificaion as no foce agains any one in paicula ink is las pon is wo insising on because is a coon pacice aong defendes of one o anoe eoy of epsec usificaon o gnoe e skepcal aleave e eoy s nended o eli nae Hee s anoe passage fo BonJou exibing is sae en dency: As sould by now be clea e an ovaion fo a cohe ence eoy s no any ndependen plausbliy aacng o e idea a coeence is e sle basis fo usifcaion bu ae e unenabliy of foundaonals in all is fos 49 ) e Pyons couldn ask fo anyin oe
159
Inteal Cherentim
A furr dffculy w BonJours appal o longrun obsrva on s a s no rsponsv o clam ofn mad a com png nrprv scmaa can organ daa n ncompabl ways no mar ow muc daa s gvn o b organd I s cn rally mporan for BonJour o answr s crcsm bu mrly oucs on n a brf foono famlar Qunan clam a ory s undrdrmnd by obsrvaon would f corrc apply as muc o foundaonals vws as o cornc ors 243 n 4). Qu rmarkabl passag connus: A full consdraon of s [Qunan clam s mpossbl n s book I dos sm o m owvr a dpnds for wavr plausbly posssss on a qu sarp obsrvaonal/orcal dsncon for wc no adqua dfns as bn offrd 243 n 4 s s doubly odd Frs BonJour's ory sms o dpnd on a sarp dsncon bwn os blfs a ar cognvly sponanous and os a ar no so s ardly opn o m o complan abou a paralll sarp dsncon n Qun's poson Morovr an abandonmn of a sarp dsncon bwn obsrvaonal and orcal sms o nanc rar an dmns possbly for a rang of compng blf sysms. Concpual rlavsm us rmans an unanswrd ra o BonJour's poson I sms n a vn f w ar gnrous n accpng Bon Jour's obsrvaonal rqurmn mulplcoc problm rmans unsolvd.
Jusificaion and uh o follow BonJour's poson o s complon l us suppos as dos a as gvn adqua rsponss o bo npu problm and mulplcoc problm W wll suppos a s a s possbl o usfy parcular blfs by an appal o an obsrvaon ally rc unquly adqu corn sysm of blfs If suc an nal usfcaon of a blf s possbl dos s sow a blf so usfd s ru? BonJour's answr s no ru conncon bwn nally usfd sysm of blfs and facs omprsng xal world s for BonJour a mar n nd of a furr ndpndn argumn H calls s argumn maus fcaory argumn BonJour's poson s nd of a mausfcaon bcaus unlk s dals forbars s commd o a wofold vrson of ralsm Maphyscal als s h hss ha an ich alty ss san cal als s h hss ha ou sans (and psuably also
160
yhonian Reflecion ou beles pupo n ue o he eanng o conen o descbe hs n ch ealy nd an edae coollay o he wo hees aen ogehe s a nal eson o he coespondence heoy o uh n ich ealy genunely ess and ou sae ens (and beles) pupo o descbe hs ealy hen hose sae ens (and beles wll be rue and only he ealy hey pu po o descbe s n ac as hey descbe . (162
Wa BonJour calls a nal vrson of corrspondnc ory of ru" s, n fac, a rc vrson of a ory of rua las n conras o socalld dsquoaonal varan of a ory As w sall s n or dal lar, a dsquoaonal ory of ru s favord by so conporary psologss prcsly bcaus ss o avod nd for a ausfcaory argun of knd a BonJours concpion of ru ss o dand goal of BonJours ausfcaon s o sabls ru of followng cla A sys of blfs wc (a rans cor n (and sabl ovr long run and (b connus o sasfy Obsrvaon Rqurn s lkly, o a dgr wc s proporonal o dgr of cornc (and sably and longnss of run o corrspond closly o an ndpndn raly" ( 7 BonJours dfns of s cla as for of an nfrnc o bs xpla naon Corrspondnc w n ih raly (as calls provds os probabl xplanaon of suc ndurng cornc In par cular provds a or probabl xplanaon an alrnav xplanaons offrd n skpcal scnaros I wll b poran o g clar wa sor of probably argun BonJour s offrng Obvously, canno b an argun basd on probably calculus quson How lkly s a a corn sabl, obsrvaonally rc sys corrsponds w n sh raly? s no lk quson If wo cards ar drawn fro a dck ow lkly s a frs s a spad, and scond as a valu lss an sx? " Furror probably argun canno rly on prcal corrlaons bwn blfs wn sys and a raly ousd , for s s vry corrlaon a s a ssu In plac of s san dard fors of probablsc rasonng, wc wll no srv s pur poss, BonJour prsns a novl for of a probably argun, naly an a pror argun nndd o sow a ntdnt probably of a skpcal yposs s lowr an ancdn probably of anskpcal yposs a BonJour s dfndng argun aks followng gnral for basc sug gson s a s vry vrsaly of skpcal yposs , r ably o xplan any sor of xprnc qually wl,
Intea Coherensm
161
wc rndrs no rly odologcally lss sasfacory as xplanaons bu lss lkly o b ru gvn fac of a corn (and sabl sys of blfs" 8) Mor fully: Whl h whol pon of a skpcal hypohss lk ha of h vl don s o b coplly and ually copabl wh any sul ng pan of xpnc and hus nh fuabl no dscon fabl by any such pan hs s no u of h hypohss ha blfs a causd by a spaopoal wold of a o o lss od nay so Such a wold unlk h don s no ly a nual poduc of blfs. On h conay havng as dos a dfn and odly chaac of s own such a wold would b xpcd a p o o caus blfs n ways whch flcd ha chaac o so dg no n a coplly ando fashon Scond and o poan h s avalabl a coplcad alb schac accoun n s of bologcal voluon and o so xn culual and concpual voluon whch xplans how cognv bngs whos sponanous blfs a conncd wh h wold n h gh way could co o xs. ( 87
Ors for xapl Wgnsn n Tatats av apd o us nvulnrably of skpcal scnaros as a bass for dsssng Wgnsns claand any av followd n swas a s nvulnrably rndrs s skpcal scnaros annglss BonJour dos no adop s ln bu argus nsad a vulnrably o rfuaon gvs corrspondnc yposs a gr dgr of ancdn probably an say Dscars don yposs wc lk or skpcal scnaros s un o rfuaon. I s no owvr xpland wy s dffrnc sould lad o a dffrn assn of ancdn probabls Bonour pons ou qu corrcly a r s song fundanally arbrary abou don yposs. Wy on g ask would a don wan o spnd s foolng popl? Wa would b pon of ? In conras corrspondnc yposs conans as a coponn a spcfc ory concrnng condons undr wc cognvly sponanous blfs wll occur conans a or of prcpon Furror and s s BonJours scond pon s ory of prcpon squars a las n a broad way w ory of voluon wc s also a coponn of our nal sys. No slar nonarbrary condons xs for don yposs I nk s ay wll xplan wy fro wn sys of blfs currnly popular n Ws nllcual crcls w ak srously corrspondnc yposs bu no don yposs Bu wy any of s sould bar on coparav
162
yrrhonian Reflection
andn pobably of hs copng hypohss I confss ha canno s h assgnn of ancdn pobabls can ak plac whn h sys of blfs lav o backgound assupons pvous nvsgaons and so foh and hy can also b ad abaly us o g hngs gong Non of hs ways of assgnng ancdn pobabls wll sv puposs of Bon Jous ausfcaon Bonou nds so o od fo assgnng ancdn pobabls a noncohns nonabay a po hod I confss ha fnd hs all qu ncophnsbl I s had o s ha Bonou has don anyng o han ak ov old vfcaonals ln and conv s cla abou h cognv annglssnss of skpcal hypohss no a cla concnng h ancdn pobably of h falshood
A Assssmt I wll bng hs dscusson o an nd by askng ow wll Bonous vson of cohns sasfs h h succss condons fo an adqua hoy ·0£ psc usfcaon gvn n chap 6. hy wll hav o b wodd o flc Bonous concn wh pcal usfcaon ah han h song noon of pcal knowldg Fs dos hs san of cohns sasfy h dand fo phlosophcal cando ha s dos h claly dsgna ang of hos blfs whos saus of bng usfd hs hoy s nndd o vndca answ o hs qusons s no I s lf nly uncla whch f any of os pcal blfs ha a coonly houg o b usfd a fo BonJou ally usfd I s lf qually uncla wha sos of blfs g b usfd n fuu Scond as h xpland n a las so dal how ou usfd pcal blfs dv h usfcaon h answ o ha quson s no Fnally has h dvlopd hs oy of usfcaon wou bggng h quson agans Pyhons No
r ad th Isoatio Objctio I av agud ha Bonous ausfcaon fals o scu a cospondnc laonshp bwn blfs and h wold y a nndd o psn In ffc Bonou as asd h Casan pobl of xal wold and lk any bfo fald o solv In hs scon I wll xan a way of dalng wh u pobl a avodso aps o avodunng no a vaan of adonal pobl of xnal wold As w saw Bonou asd hs pobl b adopng a obus vson of a cospondnc
Inteal Coherentm
163
dfiniion of ru On urrn pilosopial sn, is alos alon in willingly aping burdn of solving ru probl along s lins Oldr orniss of an idalis srip apd o avoid ru probl by rjing lai a orrspondn dfins ru. For , orn no only lays down ririon for ru, i also dfins i ru, n, dos no onsis of a rlaionsip bwn oug and a wi is no oug i onsiss of a rlaionsip aong ougs. os sraigforward way of dvloping su a ory is o adop so vrsion of apysial idalis blif, n, in ordr o b ru, nd no a soing a is no a blif, for byond blifs and or nal niis, noing xiss oris of is kind ar u ou of syl, oug r av bn rain inrnal ovns in ir dirion or rn innovaion is ap o solv ru prob l by invoking soalld disquoaional onpion of u following spin snn akn fro lfrd arski illus ras ow ru prdia funions disquoaionally now is wi" is ru, if and only if snow is wi y appnding xprssion is ru o a quod dlaraiv snn, w produ a snn rufunionally quivaln o anor, wr quoaion arks av disappard along wi ru prdia islf. W ig all is a disapparan oy of u Wy sould su a onpion of u b araiv o pis ologiss? answr, a las for so pilosoprs, is a i ss o dfin ru in a way a avoids nd for soing lik onours ajusifiaory argun. f disquoaional on pion of ru says all r is o say abou naur of u, n ida a onn of a ru blif us a or irror ral iy an b disardd as a isguidd pi of iagry n Donald Davidsons fliious pras, givn arskis onpion of ru, w ay spak of orrspondn wiou onfronaion 6 n idia probl in using disquoaional or sani onpion of ru is a i anno b sad in a sipl gnral way wiou gnraing paradoxs. s paradoxs o in a variy of fors, bu, for our puposs, is xapl is as good as any: s nn on irysvn lin of is pag i s fals. s i us ou, is snn ours on irysvn lin of is pag. o if i is ru, sin i says of isf a i is fals, n i is fals furror, if i is fals, sin as wa i says of islf, n i is ru o if i is ru, i is fas, and onvrsly
164
Pyhonan efetons
Beause of e rea of paradox, e developen of e sean t onepon of ru s olex and elaborae ere s also onsderable dsagreeen onernng ow e sean paradoxes sould be deal wfor exaple, weer ey an be solved or no, and f ey an be solved, ow? For our presen purposes, ow ever, we an se ese ssues asde. If an appeal o e dsquoaonal onepon of ru ould solve epseologal probles n e way a soe plosopers nk an, en we would ave o exam ne e redenals of a eory self As we sall see, e dsquo aonal eory of ru wll no serve ese purposes o sow s, I wll exane Ke Lerers use of s onepon of ru n s book Ther f KnwledgeY Lerer offers a defeasbly analyss of knowledge of e knd exaned n aper 2 DK kows that if ad oly if (i accepts that i i it is tue that iii is copletely ustified i acceptig that ad (iv is copletely ustified i acceptig that i a way that is ot defeated by ay false stateet 47
erer expends os of s energy unpakng, explanng, and defendng e rd and four lauses n s analyss Usng ernology nrodued n e frs par of s sudy, Lerer s aepng o buress ), e perfrmane lause usng e sdeonsrans presened n v, e exeals lause. I ave argued a s s a sguded effor, bu I do no wan o go no ese aers agan Here I am neresed only n Lerers use of e dsquoaonal eory of r n offerng a response o e solaon obeon e obeon a an aepane syse and all a oeres w ould our n e nd opleely solaed fro e exeal world" ( 143 . Lerers nal dsusson of e dsquoaonal eory of ru s bref, and s use of n defendng a oerens aoun of knowledge ours so nnouously n ex, a an easly pass by unnoed He nrodues e dsquoaonal eory of ru n expl ang e seond lausee ru lausen s defnon He reognes a e adopon of an unresred verson of e dsquoa onal eory of ru leads o e knds of paradoxes noed above He offers no soluon o ese paradoxes Ye e fnds reasons no o be dauned by s For eurs purposes, Lerer presens s poson roug developng wa e alls stfatn games A laan o knowledge s onfroned by a skep wo produes possble defeaors o er knowledge la If s laan anno, on e bass of e syst of blefs se aeps, eer defea or neurale e proposed
Intea Coherentim
165
opor n laan loss usfaon ga and us s no prsonally usfd n r blf Varous sors of usfaon gas rg as skp s gvn or and or laud n rasng obons dvlopn of s usfaon gas rougly rapulas squn o rvsons o dfasbly ory xand n Capr 2 of s sudy xapl of a usfaon ga g lp ova Lrrs poson Caimant see a table fot of me. Skeptic You ae isolated fom the exteal wold Caimant t is moe easoable fo me to accept that see a table i fot of me tha that am isolated fom the exteal wold am visually coected with the exteal wold ad ot isolated fom it (43
Provdd a laans assron s ru s would av won s round n usfaon ga for s would av dfad skps allng fro wn r apan sys I wll no follow Lrrs progrss roug varous lvls of us faon bu nsad go srag o wa Lrr alls ulra usfaon ga Is ask as w sall s s o dal w ru probl or as rr alls solaon probl In ulra usfaon ga skp s allowd follow ng anuvr skp ay rqur laan o rpla anyng laan aps a s fals w apan of s dnal and a sa rpla anyng a logally pls rplad w apan of s dnal (4 (s s a ounrpar of wa I arlr alld wans sragy of unbngng blvr a prson s usfd n blvng song only f a prson onnus o b usfd wn all r fals blfs ar rplad by ru ons ) o s ow ulra usfaon ga funons suppos a as a ar of fa laan s no vsually onnd w xrnal world oug gvn r apan sys s an rasonably suppos s s Undr s ondons ga gos as follows Caimant see a table i fot of me Skeptic Replace f am visually coected with the exteal wold with am ot visually coected with the exteal wold You ae isolated fom the exteal wold 44
s laan loss for w r apan sys so alrd s s no longr usfd n r blf a s ss a abl n fron of r
166
Pyrrhonian Refection
uppos owvr a claian is as a ar of fac vsually conncd wi world n skpic can no ak dfaing ov n las dialogu, for is no allowd o ask claian o rplac song ru w song fals L us furr suppos a claian rains undfad roug vry round of jusifcaion ga ncludng rounds of ulra usf caon ga In a cas w g following srong rsul or pr sonal jusificaon o ran undfad, us b ru a on s conncd n way on accps a on s. ru conncon ransfors prsonal jusificaon ino knowldg (44) s provids basis for Lrr's soluon o solaon probl: he eply to the] isolation objection is a dilemma. he claimant mst accept that she is visally connected with extenal eality to win the jstiication game yielding pesonal jstiication. Eithe she is coect in accepting this and she is so connected o she is incoect and she is not connected Sppose that she is connected with the extenal wod as she accepts. In that case she will be vic toios in the lta stiication game he jstiication will be ndeeated and she ill tn ot to have knowledge on o accont. hat is the appopiate eslt in sch a case. Sppose on the contary that she is not connected with the extenal wold thogh she accepts that she is. hen she loses in the ulta jstii cation game and she will not tn ot to have knowledge on o accont. hat is the pope eslt in sch an instance since she is tly ignoant Whethe she is isolated o not ou coheence theoy o jstiication yields the appopiate eslt concening knowledge (44
How dos any of is bar on skpics? I dpnds on kind of skpcs in quson f skpc is a dogaic skpc and clais a noing abou xrnal raly n b known, n on Lrrs accoun of knowldg, skpcis n is for) s fals o clai a nong can b known abou xrnal world, rr can clai a f e n soing is known abou xrnal world Non of is as forc agains Pyrronan skpic wo suggss a f e n w know nong abou xrnal world Lrr's ory of jusfcaon provds no rspons o Pyrronian skpicis. Indd, ss o nal Pyrronan skpcs: for all w know, w know song abou xal world and for all w know, w do no Lrr dos no s o rcogn a is ory lads o is srong skpical concluson. Indd, ss o id is fro s radr and praps fro islf by prnding a ulra jus
167
Ineal Coherenim
fcaton ga ratr tan bng a standn for t dsquotatonal account of trut s actually a ga tat soon could play and wn onsdr t followng curous passag Thus o ou theoy of kowledge whethe we wi o the sketic wis the day deeds o whethe what we accet is coect ad esecially o what we accet about whe we ae tustwothy ad whe we ae ot We caot efute the sketic by aeal to demo statio We ague agaist he fom ou accetace system which is ecisely what she calls to questio We may oetheless kow that she is wog ssumig ou comlete justificatio fo some of the thigs we accet is sustaied withi the membes of ou ulta system we kow those thigs to be tue ad ideed we kow that we kow f we do kow that we kow the of couse we kow that the sketic is mistake i deyig we kow 8
Gvn our capacty to for nstd pstc clas clas tat w know tat w know sotng) togtr wt an xtalst account of t trut rlaton t crtanly could b t cas tat w not only know tngs but also know tat w know t If w do know tat w know crtan tngs tn w wll also know tat skptcs s fls But on Lrrs account of knowldg ts says no or tan tat or all w know w know skptcs s fals Pyrronan skptc wll grant ts rly notng for s part tat for al w know skptcs s not fals Lrrs antskptcal argu nt f targtng a Pyrronan skptc ratr tan a dull dogatc skptc s spnnng ts wls.
Notes 1 o a chaacteistic statemet of the taditioal ositio o these mattes see fo examle Bead Bosaquets Implicaion and Linear Infer ence 192 2 Blashad 1939 3 BoJou 1 98 5 ll age efeeces ae to this souce 4 ecet liteatue eistemologists hae ofte daw a distictio betwee coheece theoies of justificatio ad coheece theoies of tuth ad the hae goe o to defed a coheece theoy of justificatio but ot a coheece theoy of tuth BoJou as we shall see adots just this stat egy cotast Blashad defeds what he calls a coheece theo of tuth his may suest that Blashads coheece theoy is fudametally dif feet itetio fom that defeded by BoJou That howee is ot ight Blashad dew a distictio betwee takig coheece to be the cr erion of tuth ad takig coheece to be the definiion of tuth His theo coceig the citeio of tuth coesods to what is ow called a theo
168
Pyhonian Refection
ustcat hugh he held that chece pvdes th the cte ad the det tuth Blashad ade t hs cetal task the secd vlue The Naue Though t deed cheece as a cte tuth ate Blashad aaded the vew that cheece als pvdes the de t tuth 5 See p 5 6 he qualcat that the accesslty hld pcple at least s e tha a lttle suspcus I ulke BJu the cheece thest exteds hs they t ecpass a p kwledge ths aguet wll shw that a chee tst appach we have a p kwledge ethe 8 ga a vgus attack th atve ad descptve accuts hua atalty see Stch ad sett 9 8 Stch 985 ad Cheak 986 9 BJu akes a sla ca p 52 See 24 Mt Whte has develped a pst alg these les ude the ttle cpats whch he ctasts wth the hls ud the wt gs ue ad thes He des t hweve develp the pst su cet detal t shw hw t wuld deal wth clcts etwee deet susystes See chapte Whte 98 2 Hee BJu ctes Wld Sellass ptat essay Epcs ad the Phlsphy Md whch s epted Sellas 963 3 BJu speds se te dscussg the status the sevatal equeet callg t at e place a a p equeet 42 ad at athe a egulatve pcple 43 Sce BJu hlds a cheetst vew the a p the sevatal equeet cat e estalshed cheetst guds It thus ccupes as aalus a place hs the as des the dxastc pesupt BJu desces the sevatal eque et as a egulatve pcple as ppsed t a stlevel epstec pc ple t dstgush hs pst vaus weak vess udatal s Ctepa epstelgsts sped a geat deal te wg aut the dalectcal elatshps ag vaus thees epstec us tcat Hee exaple BJu s eage t shw that hs pst thugh depatg stct cheetss t sldg t the eey cap the weak udatalsts I ths wk I wll t e uch c ceed wth such taual ctveses t y d all thees ustcat g the tack well ee such sutle ssues ae eached I chapte 9 I wll exae Dald Davdss attack the t that thee ca e cpatle cceptual schees Eve Davdss agu ets ths sce ae cect they wll t seve BJus pupses ecause Davds eplys extealst ts that Bu eects 5 hs s all cudely ad accuately stated ut thee s t space t get thgs ght wll t hweve tade y w accuaces y ps g the thes
Inteal Coherentm
169
16 Davidsos posiio wil be examied i chape 9 1 7. Lehe 1 990 Al eeeces less ohewise idicaed ae o his souce 1 8 Ealie Lehe expessed he ouh cause o his aaysis moe pe spicuousy as oows: iv S is compleey jusiied i accepig i some way ha does o deed o ay ase saeme 1 8 1 9 This ciicism paallels he ciicism made eaie i chape 5, o Noicks espose o skepicism.
9 External Coherentism
I hav wo fundanal obcons o sandard posv cohrnc hors of h knd dvlopd by Blanshard and BonJour Frs hr hodologcal nrnals lads o h skpcal concluson ha w know alos non of h hngs w coonly hnk w know or o avod hs rsul, hy appal o an dal sys of blfs no accssbl o h blvr and sld, nconssnly, no a for of hodologcal xrnals cond hr con o onolog cal nrnals rass h Carsan probl of h xrnal world h long hsory of unsuccssful ffors o solv hs probl suggss ha any hory ha allows o ars wll b dfad by . My concur s ha any cohrns hory cobnd wh hr hodologcal nals or onologcal nals wll b unab o answr skpcs If hs concur s corrc suggss ha cohrns o hav any rasonabl chanc of succss us b radcally xald W hav alrady xand a nubr of xrnals hors of knowldg n chaprs 3 and 4 I argud hr ha non of hs hors gvs a fully adqua accoun of knowldg, and furhror, non s capabl of rspondng o h challngs of skpcs hy addrss Non of hs hors was howvr prsnd fro a cohrns sandpon A hory ha dos cobn xrnals wh cohrn s rprsns a dparur n phlosophyon ha rsrucurs probls of psology n profound ways. uch a hory has bn dvopd n a srs of arcls by Donald Davdson Is dsncv faur s o cobn a cohrns hory of knowldg and (n a way a cohrns hory of ruh wh an xals accoun of
Exteal Coherentim
171
anng! s poran nnovaon s subc of s capr I wll srucur dscussion around Davdsons prograac ssay A Cornc ory of ru and Knowldg (CK) supplnng w aral drawn fro psology xald () and ubcv Inrsubcv Obcv (IO)
Davidson's Version of Coherentism followng sowa obscur passag skcs probl of psology as Davdson ss I meaigs ae give by obecive uh codiios [which hey ae] hee is a quesio how we ca kow ha he codiios ae sais ied, o his would appea o equie [which i does o] a co oaio bewee wha we believe ad ealiy ad he idea o such a cooaio is absud CTTK 07)
a s f w cobn docrn a anngs ar gvn y obcv ru condons w furr docrn a corrspondnc s s or crron of ru n n sng for ru w would av o copar wa w blv w raly. da of suc a coparson s accordng o Davdson absurdoug dos no say wy. o aod s absurdy song as o gv Davdson wll no abandon docrn a anngs ar gvn by obcv ru condons so docrn a us go s a cor rspondnc s es of ru. n s plac Davdson accps cornc as s of ru: Bu f cornc s a s of ru n cornc s a s for udgng a obcv ru condons ar sa sfd and w no longr nd o xplan anng on bass of possbl confronaon (30). o conncon bwn ru and anng looks song lk s: anng s gvn by obcv ru condons; obcv ru condons ar sd by cor nc rfor anng s no xpland by confronaon bu s xpland by cornc nad If s progra can b ad good Davdson nks a followng consquncs wll follow Gvn a corrc psology w can b ralss n all dparns. W can accp obcv ru condons as ky o anng a rals vw of ru and w can nss a knowldg s of an obcv world ndpndn of our languag (30) sgnfcanc of s larg clas wll rg only as ory s laborad n dal
172
yrr yrrhon honian ian R eflection eflection
Te Ntue f eece or Davdson, as for mos cornss, cornc s a propry of a sysm of blfs. r ar, owvr, varous ways n wc w mg undrsand a blf blf mg b akn absracly n a wd sns o nclud anyng a somon might accp as ru. blf akn s way s rar lk radonal noon of a proposon In conras, w mg lm our anon o acual blfs or rasons a wll soon mrg, Davdsons corns ory s concrnd w acual blfs of acual uman bngs Blfs for m ar sas of popl w nnons, dsrs, sns organs; y ar sas a ar causd by, and caus, vns nsd and ousd bods of r nranrs (308) or Davdson, a sysm of blfs s no a s of absrac ns sandng, praps, n cran logcal rlaonsps o on anor blf s a sa of a uman bng a can b causd drcly or ndrcly by vns n surroundng world and may slf caus vns n world. a dos no av scond faur of Davdsons poson s a a gly dald and rsrcv sns of cornc of knd xamnd n capr 8 nsad of dmandng dmandng a a corn sysm mus b mad up of muualy supporng blfs wr ac on of m s ru, lls us, mor modsly, All a a cornc ory can manan s a mt of blfs n a corn s of b lfs lfs ar ru 308, 30 8, mpass mpass addd o avod gv gvn ngg mprsmprs son a blfs ar somow counabl, sam pon can b mad s s way wa y s s way of sang sang poson poson can a bs b akn as a n, snc r s probably no usful way o coun blfs, and so no clar manng o da a mos of a prsons blfs ar ru somwa br way o pu pon s o say sa y r s a prpr sumpon sumpon n favor of ru ru of a blf a cors w a sgnf sgnf can mass of blf 308). rom s, accordng o Davdson, follows a vry vry blf bl f n a corn oal s s of blfs blfs s usfd u sfd n n lg of s prsumpon" and f knowldg s usfd ru blf, b lf, n would sm a all ru ru blfs of o f a conssn blvr consu knowldg 308 s las rmarks av o b rad carfully Noc a Davdson dos no say a all blfs of a conssn blvr consu knowldg Davdson canno say s bcaus acknowldgs a a blf can b a mmbr of a corn corn sysm sys m of blfs and us b usfd, bu sll b fals. or Davdson, usfcaon dos no av forc of my adquagrounds condon or Drsks conclusvrason condon Davdson, lk Wgnsn and Cs
173
Extea Extea Cherentm
ol nks w nd sc grac o know ngs snc bng usfd by slf nd no guaran ru ng asd ndd laboraons and rfnns as a frs aroxaon Davdsons accoun of knowldg cos o s: () f a blf (ru or fals) s a br of a s of corn blfs n s a usfd blf. () f furror s blf s ru (and f knowldg s us fd ru blf) n s blf couns couns as knowld knowldg g
uth f knowldg s rad as usfd ru blf r ngs nd xla xlann nng g usfcaon usfcaon ru ru and blf. For Davdson Davd son usfc u sfcaon aon s xland by cornc. ru cos nx. It shod be cea that I do ot hope to deie tth i tems o coheece ad beie Tth T th is beatiy beatiy taspae taspaet t compaed to beie ad coheece ad I take it to be pimitive Tth as appied to tteaces shows the disqotatioa eate eshied i Taski's Covetio T ad that is eogh to ix its domai o appicatio Reative to a agage o a speake o cose so thee is moe to tth tha Covetio Covetio T thee the e is whateve caies ove om agage to agage o speake to speake What Covetio gee spo T ad the tite seteces it decaes te ike Gass is gee ke by a Egish speake is te i ad oy gass is gee' evea is that the tth o a tteace depeds o jst two thigs what the wods as spoke mea ad how the wod is aaged Thee is o the eativism to a cocepta scheme a way o viewig thigs a pespective CTTK 3089
s assag says a gra dal and a nd so of can ca n b full fully y arcad only w rfrnc o Davdsons or wrngs. A s sag wll only no a crcal dffrnc bwn Davdsons and rrs us of dsquoaonal ory rr as w av sn uss dsquoaonal ory o rovd a quck dflaonary soluon o solaon robl Davdson dos no us dsquoaonal ory s way for oldsand s s a cnral faur of s xalsa solaon robl s slf roduc of concual confuson. r s a dflaona coonn n Davdsons oson a cos ou n s nssnc a dsquoaonal ory ls us s a r of an uranc dnds on us wo ngs: wa words as sokn an and ow world s arrangd" and us no
174
yrhonian Relecon
furr rlavaon o a onpual sm s ndd Dsquoaon ory plays play s a y rol rol n sown sow n ow r an b orrspon orr spon dn wou onfronaon, bu, by slf, dos no provd a qu and asy or qu and dry answr o allng of spsm
he Skepcal haenge As mars now sand, followng sms o rman an opn poss bl b ly y a prson prson mg av av an adqualy adqualy orn s of o f blfs blfs a ar omprnsvly fals abou aual world 39 sps allng s o as wa ruls ou s possbly of massv rror Davdson aps allng adon vn a mld orn ory l mn mus provd a sp w a rason for supposng orn blfs ar ru 39. On way of dalng w s spal allng s o dlar a s n som way llg ma or unnllgbl, baus, as Wgnsn pu , All sng, all onfrmaon and dsonfrmaon of a yposs as pla alrady wn a sysm" Wgnsn, 969b, If a s so, mas no sns o as for usfaon of an nr sysm, and so su allngs allngs may smply b dsmss dsm ssd d as unnllgbl Rory, as Davdson orrly, I n rads m, sms o adop s dsmssv approa approa On s s pon Davdson xplly xplly pars ompany ompany w Rory Rorty put it "Nothig out a jutiiatio ule y reer ee to what we already aept ad there i o way to get outide our elie ad our laguage o a to id ome tet other tha oheree. "2 out thi am a a you ee i agreemet with Rorty Where we dier i we do i o whether there remai a quetio how gie that we aot "get " get outide our elie ad our laguag laguagee o a to id ome tet other tha oheree, we eerthele a hae kowledge o, ad talk aout a oetie puli world ot o our makig thik thi ueto doe remai while expet that Rorty doet thik o thi i hi iew, the he mut thik am makig a mitake i tryig to awer the uetio. Neerthele here goe. 30)
o a so Davdson dos no rspond o spsm smply on bass o f dsquoaona dsquoaonall ory ory of r H dos no, n Rory rs s rspons smply on olsm H also rs all syl of Rory nals amps o prov xsn of xal world roug marsalng adqua vdn from wn sysm of blfs bl fs n syl of BonJour BonJour Wa Wa amps am ps o do nsad s o
175
Exteal Coherentim
bring ru and knowledge ogeer roug an exernalis accoun of eaning.
ensation and Belie Belie One way and peraps e only way a uan beings are con neced o e world around e is roug sensaon. s suggess a e rig response o e skepcs callenge s o gve an ade quae accoun of belefs a coe fro sensaon I s ose beliefs i sees a connec us o e world. Bu e relaonsp beween sensaon and belef belef s a aer of dspue. For soe ( e .g. sol) a s ensaon is a knd of b elef elefav avng ng a sensaon sens aon s avng av ng a belef For oers (e.g. c I ews) sensaons sensaons are no belefs belefs aloug cer cer an belefs are drecly abou e and rue in vrue of e. Bu waever for for suc suc vews ake as coonly been assued a sensaons play an evdeniary role for our beliefs abou obecve realiy nder s assupon e plosopcal progra is o sow ow is evdenal evdenal base can suppor a suably sua bly broad range of epr ical belefs. I ave already dscussed e difficules suc views ave n susani sus aning ng is burden and I will no go no s again. Davidson suggess a in conras o ese earler eores e relaionsp beween sensaons and belef s no nferenial bu causal Sensaons cause soe belef be lefss and n ths sense are e bass or ground ground of ose belefs (3 ) . s suggess suggess n u u a causal causal e ory of usfcao u sfcaon n or knowledge knowledge n e syle say of lvn Goldan bu Davdson resiss s epaon: Bu a causal explanaion of a belef does does no sow sow ow ow or wy he he belef s usifed (3 . Jusf Jusf caon for Davdson is a aer of coerence e ask as Davdson sees s o fnd soe way of ransung a cause no a reason (3 1 ) and a s pon s far fro fro obvo obvous us ow s g g be done. leas is is uc sees clear o Davdson: s proble canno canno be solved by rying o link belefs o e world roug causal ner edares If e neredares are erely causes ey do no us ify ify wle wl e if if ey deli deliver ver nfor nfora aio ion n ey ay be lyng lyng ( 3 2 ) . Our proble pu sply is o find find soe s oe way o lnk our b elefs elefs abou e world o e world n a anner a sows ow suc belefs are us fed fed ausa a usall rela relao ons ns do no n o solve e proble proble because becau se ey are no usificaory. u sificaory. psec neredar neredares es generae probles raer an solve e for we are bound o ask ow te are relaed o he world and weer ey are reporng i correcly Wa s needed s soe ode od e of conneco connecon n a a does no encouner any of ese ese diffcules. diffcules. Davdson fnds in e noion of eanng
176
Pyrr Pyrrhonan honan R eflecton eflecton
eanin and an d Jus us ific ificaion aion o Davdson meanng and usfaon ae lnked b he follong nle nle Gvng Gvng he meanng meanng of a senene senen e ll demand ha e sef ha ould usf asseng " 32). Davdson manans ha e gve a bad aoun of meanngand bng oules on ouselvesf selvesf e hold ha haeve hee s o meanng meanng mus e e aed bak someho o exeene he gven o aens of smulaon somehng nemedae beeen belef and he usual obes ou beefs ae abou" 33 ) 3 We mgh all hs a foundaonals on eon of meanng meanng a leas n s bas foms omes n mmedael aessle hunks. No hoeve a ean ue foes self on us On one sde hee ae elefs h he meanngs lagel lagel f no omleel omleel aessle a essle o us. us . o he mos a e sm l kno kno sagh off he onens of ou belefs On he ohe sde ue seaaehee s he mae of uh ha belefs mean s one hng hehe he ae e o false s a holl seaae mae. ne e ake hs se e oen he doo o skesm fo e mus hen alo ha a ve ve gea maneh manehas as mosof mos of he senenes e hold o be ue ma n fa be fase s onal ng o make meann meanngg aessble has made uh naessle naess le When meanng meanng goes esemologal n hs a h and meanng ae neessal dvoed" 3 3 We seem o have have eahe eahed d a dlemma he he seah fo an emal foundaon fo meanng o knoledge leads o skesm hle a oheene heo seems a a loss o ovde an eason fo a beleve o eleve hs belefs f oheen ae ue. We ae augh augh eeen eeen a false false anse anse o he ske ske and no no anse" 3 4) . sk e hs s a delghful delghful esul fo us a heav heav u o he ske den on he anske. also suggess ha hee s onl one a o avod hs skeal dlemma. Davdson us hs a Wha s needed o anse he skes s o sho ha someone h a moe o ess) oheen se of belefs has a eason o suose hs elefs ae no msaken msaken n n he he man 3 ) uhemoe and and hs hs s a u ua a on The anse o [he olem mus be o fnd a n fo suosng ha mos of ou elefs ae ue ha s no a fom of evdene ne as a s Davdson Davdson ses ses meel meel odue odue dn 3 4 ) Cng evde a ne age fo skeal aak.
The Fundamenal Fundamen al u um m en en Davdsons agumen n behalf of he lam ha mos of ou belefs ae e has o as hh I l abe h hdeson agumen and he fseson agumen
Exteal Cherentim
77
he hrdPerson Argumen A orre undersandng of he seeh beefs desres nenons and oher roosona a udes of a erson eads o he onuson ha mos of a erson's beefs mus be re" 3 4 ). he FrsPerson Argumen Anyone h houghs . . . mus kno ha a beef s and ho n genera beefs are deeed and nerreed. hese beng erfey genera fas e anno fa o use hen e ommunae h ohers . here s a rey srong sense n hh e an be sad o kno ha here s a resumon n faor of he oera ruhfuness of anyones beefs nudng our on" 3 4)
he hid-Peso Aume n he hrderson argumen e are asked o magne oursees aemng o nerre or ransae he ueranes of a seaker hose anguage e do no kno. We furher magne ha no ransaon manua exss and ha he anguage e enouner does no bear any deeabe hsora reaonshs o anguages e aready kno. Our nforman uers eran senenes on eran oasons and our ask s o fgure ou ha hs erson means by hese ueranes On he assumon ha he erson s usng hese senenes o exress beefs ha aso es us ha he erson beees. nereng hese ueranes and dsoerng he ersons beefs exressed n uerng he senenes s somehng e do smuaneousy Ho shoud e go abou aomshng hs osded ask? Adang a sraeg from une, Dadson suggess e begn by exam nng hose oasons hen our seaker assens o a senene hs s a far ae o sar he roje of denfyng beefs and meanngs sne a seakers assen o a senene deends boh on ha he means by he senene and ha he beees abou he ord" 3 ) s os sbe ha aer nesgaon oud reea ha e had he bad uk o begn our effors a nerreaon h a res ben on keeng he anguage of hs uure sere Our orkng assumon s and mus be ha for he mos ar e are no beng hndered by dffues of hs knd. We do hs frs beause hs assumon seems enrey naura gen he roe ha anguage usuay ays n human nera ons: A seaker ho shes hs ords o be undersood anno sysemaay deee hs oudbe nerreer abou hen he assens o senenes" 3 ). Seond e do no seem o hae any oher hoe bu o make hs assumon f e are gong o aem o nere he seaker's senenes We mgh a hs he snery assumon
178
yhonian Reflecion
u sne s no enoug f ou nfomant s snee bu dm wed o an aas s snee assen wll ovde lle el n nteetng e meanng of s ueanes We wll ave o suose fute ta ou nfoman s lagel) ogntvel ometent We ntee a s usng wat as ome to be known as te nle of a e nle dets te nteete to anslate o nte e so as to ead some of s own sandads of tut nto te atte of senenes eld o be true b te seake" 3 6 am not entel sue wa Davdson as n mnd n seakng of tndrd of tut but a leas nludes eadng ou own log nto te ougts of e seake" 3 6 Hee exandng on deas ntodued b une Davdson suggess at s leads del o e dentfaton of logal onsants as well as o assgnng a logal fom to all sen enes" 36. Howeve t s a fue extenson of e nle of a tat s mos motan fo ou esent uroses Someng lke at oeates n e neetaon of ose sentenes wose u of assen ome and go w me and lae wen e nteete fnds a sentene of e seake e seake assens o egulal unde on dons e [te nteete eognzes e takes tose ondtons o be e u ondtons of e seake's sentene" 36 emass added We wee old g a e begnnng a e meanng of a sen ene s gven b ts obetve ut ondons We ae now beng toldat least fo oason sentenestat te ondons tat egularl ause assent to a sentene onsttute te trut ondtons fo tat sentene. It follows ten fo oason sentenes at least tat te ondtons tat egulal ause te assent to te sentene onst tute te meanng o ontent of tat sentene om ts t follows tat We an't n geneal fst dentf belefs and meanngs and ten ask wat aused tem. e ausalt las an ndsensable ole n detemnng te ontent of wat we sa and beleve" 3 ) n Es emolog Exenalzed" Davdson efes o s done as e bas ntuon a n e smles ases wods and ougs efe o wat auses tem" EE 95 s s bas ntuons ausal ene extenalst aoun of meannga dves Dadsons agumen Davdson's ausal semantsas we mgt all twoks n a smle stagtfowad wa onl fo oason sentenes A moe elaboate teor wll be needed to exlan te trut ondtons fo ote knds of sentenes and ee Dadson eles on s ojet of extendng a asklke semants to natual languages. Wtout gong no at s moant to note at Davdson extends te nle of a beond e nteeaton of logal onstants
Exteal Coherentim
79
and oason senenes As he us "Hee oud exend he ne of hay o favo neeaons ha as fa as ossbe e seve uh" 36. o seak messonsally 'd say Davdson holds ha meanng has boh an nasysema and an exasysem a dmenson. he key dea abou he exasysema dmenson of meannghe dmenson ha nks he sysem o he olds ha s ausal. hee ae hoeve many senenes and belefs ha do no sand n de ausal elaon o he uh ondons bu ae onneed only ndely hough ohe belefs Davdson holds ha e mus ay he nle of hay o he neeaon of hese nasysema onneons as el f has oe hen e ave a he follong song onluson "One e agee o he gen eal mehod of neeaon have skehed beomes mossble oely o hold ha anyone ould be mosly ong abou ho hngs ae" 3 Noe ha n hs assage Davdson says no moe han ha beomes mossble oely t hld ha anyone ould be mosly ong abou ho hngs ae" hs ases a ueson osed by Davdson hmself Why ouldn haen ha seake and neee undesand one anohe on he bass of shaed bu eoneous belefs? " 3 f ha ould haen aen e bak n he skeal sou? Davdson suggess ha anyone ho nsss on hs objeon has obably faled o undesand he enal dea n he oson he s develong. Wha ake o be he moan ase of hs aoah s a o be mssed beause he aoah eveses ou naual ay of nkng of ommunaon deved fom suaons n h undesandng as aleady been seued. One undesandng has been seued e ae able ofen o lea ha a eson beleves ue ndeendenly of a aused hm o beleve " 3 hnk hs s oe bu Davdson f anyhng undesaes he ase. No only ofen bu typially e lea ha a eson beleves knong lle o nohng abou he umsanes ha aused he belef Peoe say hngs and e usually beleve ha hey beleve ha y ae sayng Beyond hs e nomaly beeve ha hey ae sayng s uehough somemes o ou e. We somemes hallenge exessons of belef h ese o ehe he sney o he u bu hs haens elavely aely. uhemoe hen e do make su hallenges e nomally do no exe e eson o eall e sef oason on h s belef as fomed S e suaon s hadly dffeen h ese o a esons on belefs kno fo examle ha Salem s he aal of Oegon ye have no eolleon of he o ason hen fs leaed hs A gea many
180
yhonian Reflection
of m belefs have hs sandng n hs a he udmena ausal onneons ha esablsh he seman lnk h he old le deel n he bakgound. s hus eas o eun o Davdsons on o evese oes and suose ha e sa ou h a holl ndeenden undesandng of ou ssem of belefs hen ask ho he ae onneed h he old. hs he ells us ma lead us o he ual ndeed faal onluson ha e an n geneal fx ha someone means ndeendenl of ha he beleves and ha auses he belef u f am gh e an' n geneal fs denf belefs and meanngs and hen ask ha aused hem he ausal las an ndsensable ole n deemnng he onen of ha e sa and beleve" 3 ) . om he eseve of an neals seman s Davdson's oson ll seem unesuasve bu he enal on of Davdson's agumen s o ee neals semans. u even f e do no ae an neals semans e sll an Davdson o anse he ueson he osed fo hmself Wh ouldn' haen ha seake and neee undesand one anohe on he bass of shaed bu eoneous belefs? " 3 ). Davd son ells us hs mgh somemes haen bu anno haen as a ule" 3 . o sho hs Davdson uses an nelleual one ha obvousl leases hm He asks us o magne an omnseno mabe semomnsenbeng lang he ole of a adal ne ee hs beng s semomnseno so seemsbeause She does no kno del sagh off ha belefs a eson has he heavenl neee n Davdsons so assgns belefs he same a ha fne fallble neees do Consaned n hs a he omnsen neee mus oeae on he assumon ha mos of he seakes belefs ae ueb He sandads She mus do hs n ode o denf he meanng of he seakes ueanes and he onen of hs belefs u ha s hough o be ue fo a heavenl neee s ue So a heavenl neee ll assgn o ou seake mosl ue belefs and ue ueanes. uhemoe f he heavenl neee uns He aenon o a fallble neee a ok She ll onlude ha mos of hs neeaon s oe ha s She ll nee he neeve belefs of he fallble ne ee as oe Wha ae e suosed o onlude fom hs exo examle onfess ha am no omleel sue Pehas us omes o hs: An omnsen neee onsaned o la he adal ne eaon game ould abue massve eo nehe o a e sons ssem of belefs no o a fne neees neeaon of anohe esons ssem of belef
Etea Coherent C oherentm m
8
Dadsons acua concus concuson on s s Oe we agree to the geeral method o iterpretatio hae kethed it eome impoile orretly to hold that anyone ould e motly wrog wrog aout how thig thig are (3 emphai added)
The Fi-eon guen If I ae foowed e arguen correcy, so far Dadson as aeped ony o ake a ranson fro e ca: I s possbe correcy o od a another coud be osy wrong wrong abou ow ow ngs are o: I s possbe correcy o od a anyone coud be osy wrong abou ow ngs are Dadson ended by sayng s possbe o old a anyone 1 Dadson ncudng onesef) coud be osy wrong abou ow ngs are, we woud ae reason o fee dssasfed Dadson sees s for afer copeng e frs sage of e arguen, e expcy asks: How does s ep e person sef wo wonders wa reason e as o nk nk s beefs beefs are are osy osy re? re? (3 8 ) We w w ardy ae ade eadway agans e skepc f we eae open e possby a a carabe carabe nerpreer nerpreer s arbung arbung a pack of faseoods fa seoods o e speaker and o sef anks, as ey say, a o. In respondng o s possby, Dadsons arguen oes ery qucky. qucky. order to dout or woder aout the proeae o hi elie a aget mut kow what a elie i But beef ar are dentfed, drecty and ndrecty by ther caue What a omiiet iter preter Her agai kow a allile iterpreter get right eough eough i he udertad a peaker ad thi i jut the ompliated aual truth that make u the elieer we are ad ixe the otet o our elie The aget ha oly to relet o what a elie i to apprei ate that that mot o hi ai elie elie are are true 3 8 8 9 emphai emphai added)
e key dea n s passage occurs n a nuber of paces n Dadsons wrngs, peraps os ceary n pseoogy xer naed, naed, were e pus e aer s s way: As ong as we adere o e basc nuon a n e spes cases words and ougs refer o wa causes e s cear a canno appen a os of our panes beefs abou wa exss n e word are fase fase
182
yhonian Reflection
The suaons hh nomally ause a belef deemne he ond ons n hh s ue EE 9)
The Golden iangle The dsusson hus fa has been lmed n an mpoan ay. We have magned a speake gvng pomped assens n vaous on exs and e as nepees yng o dsove he ondons ha unfoml unfomly y el hese esponses We have have hoeve been aly ak ng fo ganed ganed ha hese senenes podued podue d by he speake speak e fom fom pa of a language. uhemoe hen e suppose ha a speake s usng a language language e have n mnd a langua language ge ha he speake spea ke shaes sha es h ohes and uses o ommunae h hem. ould u ou ha ou speake s a ngus sefsae and has someho onoed hs language on hs on. The speakes language ould hen be pvae n ha sense. don see any a po eason hy suh a lngus selfsae mgh no exs bu n fa hey don. Language guag e as appeas appea s n he old ol d s lagely lagely a ommuny ommu ny affa affa a soal soa l podu Reognzng he soal dmenson of language auson and language use allos Davdson o deal h a seemngly dfful poblem and n he poess enh hs heoy n a mpoan ay. The poblem s hs Suppose agan e ae yng o oelae a speakes pomped assen o senenes h he umsanes ha el hem. o example hen a abb uns by he peson says Thas a abb. abb. " s naua nauall o say ha ha as he abb pass pass ng by ha pomped he assen. assen . Thee Thee ee hoeve hoeve many ohe eula eula-es ha ae anddaes fo he pompe of assen. The speakes senso ogans ee affeed n a ean ean ay; so ee e e hs nne ban ban saes. Why pk he passng of he abb as he assen pompe n pefeene o any of hese ohe losen smul? f e do pk one of hese losen smul hen e ge he peula esul ha he speakes ueane s abou say hs enal mage. To avod hs dffuly e need some mehansm ha fxes he appopae level of onen. Davdson fnds hs n he poedues poedues n hh one peson aques a language fom anohe w a tahig tahig somo somo a laguag laguag th situatio situatio oms mo ompl ut mo itpsoal What sms asi is this a os o tah) ids o istils a gulaity i th al haio o th iomat o la) whih h a olat with ts ad ojts i th iomt. This muh a tak pla without dlopd thought o th pat o th osd, o ous
Exteal Cherenim
183
t it is a eessary odiio or attritig thoghts ad mea igs o the perso osered. or ti the triage is ompeted etig two reatres ad eah reatre with ommo eatres o the word there a e o aswer to the qestio whether a rea tre i disrimiatig etwee stimi is dsrimiatig etwee stimi at sesory sraes or somewhere so mewhere rther ot or rther i Withot this sharig o reatios to ommo stimi, thoght ad speeh wod wo d hae o partiar otetthat otetthat is o otet at a S SO , 7 )
s argmen as e moran onseene a f e are o asre a meanng o a seakers senenes s ms e done n erms of a pbl pb lly ly arta a rtana nabl bl smls. s for s reason a e senene as a ra" s ao a ra raer an some oer nfor nform m asal ner nerene enerr eeen e e seakers \ and a nd e rara We mg all s Dadsons l langage argmen.
D a vidson s Exte Externa rnaist ist Semanti Seman tiss Dadson olds a s eory f orre refes one form of skesma skesm a olds a mos or all of or as frs smles lanes lanes el elef efss ao ao e orld orld may e false In order order o see e fore of s argmen s moran o reogne a s no dren smly y e rnle of ary. And a good ng oo e rnle of ary y self as no endeny o refe ske sm of e knd nder onsderaon. e on s erfely smle and no dened y Dadson. Dadson. In nerre nerreng ng s eranes eranes e rad al nerreer ms sose sos e a mos of s as elefs are re y s s) sandards. a s a meodologal reremen o ge e enerrse of nerreaon sared an sasfy a demand een f mos of s elefs nldng ose e ares o are false. ere s no ay gen e rnle of ary alone o make e ranson from In nerreng 's as elefs ms old a mos of em are re y ss sandards. sandards. o: Mos Mo s of s eran eranes es ar aree re n Dadsons eory e enral ngreden n s anskeal argmen s no e rnle of ary nsead s asal aon of senene meanng and relaedly elef onen Asraly e mg e maer s ay. Le s sose a
184
Pyrrhonan Reectons
sefes he ondons fo a belef havng he onen does ha s fo beng he belef s We an fuhe suose ha X sees he ondons unde hh he belef s ue We an hen ask ho he bele onen ondons < ae eaed o he uh ondons X. Le us suose ha hee s an moan se o beles suh ha hese o ondons ae denal In ha ase hese beles ould no be he beles hey ae hou beng ue Plungng ahead ha knd o aoun o bele onenondons and bele uhondons ould yeld suh a onvegene? Vaous heoes mgh have hs esul bu o Davdson he ausal ondon ha odues assen does boh hese hngs makes he bele he bele s and also lays don he ondons unde hh s ue So S o he ske lams ha mos o al o suh senenes senenes so assene as sened d o o mos mos o all all belefs belefs so aused ae false false hen hen he skeske mus be ong hese belefs anno be he beles hey ae and also be alse
The Problem of Error he evous dsusson hnk ons o he oe o Davdsons agumen bu does no eesen auaely o as saed s aed leaves unanseed oblems ha he onsously seeks o avod he mos obvous oblem s hs n esondng o he ske he agumen seems o oveshoo he mak by makng oneually mossble ever o make a msake n assenng o an oason senene Relaedy edy hee ould be no suh hng as a alse al se oason bele ha e ould e don a ase oason senene s ue besde besde he on on Wha e anno do gven he heoy as I have udely saed s o gve ou snee snee assen o a fase oason senene s enene hs s an uno unae esu Davdson uns uns hs aenon o o he oblem o eo oad he lose of A Coheene heoy o uh and Knoledge" Fs e should sho uld eall eall ha h a Davdson does no n o hold ha h a o ad adal al neea on o be ossble he neee neee mus hold ha all of he seakes oason senenes ae ue s sufen o he enese fo he neee o hold ha mos of hem ae ue Seond and ha s moe moan moan Davdson aeals o o he hols sde o hs oson o deal h he obem of eo Te prolem prolem o error ao e me seee se ee y seee ee a e simples leel Te es we a do is ope wi eror olisi ay, a is we erpre so as o make a age as ieligile as possile, gie is aios, s eraes ad is plae i e
ea Coeenm Coeenm
185
worl. out om om thg w wll hm wrog, a th ar a r ot o o gg hm lwhr rght a rough rough approxmato, g hm rght ma tyg th au wth th ojt o h l gg pal wght to th mplt a a out ag ag rror rror whr whr t a t pl pla a 8
cually Dadsons pass s wrong. I s no sply a probl of r rro rorr arss even a spls ll s prcsly a spls ll a gn gn s ory ory probl of rror rror s os o s prssng prssng pcur pcur now bcos bco s or coplx: coplx: I ss s s a a causs for assnng o occason snncs can b assgnd n a ary of ways wr dcsons on parcular assgnns wll b ad n rla rlaons onsp p o o cornc co rnc of a oal sys of assgnns. In so cass orall conssncy g bs b prsrd by oldng a a spakr ga s assn assn o an occason snnc rronously o w s ncssar adusns o ak car of probl of rror w arr a followng rspons o skpcs: For an poran class clas s of o f blfs r s suffcn concurrnc concurrnc of ru con con dons and anng condons suc a s no possbl for s blfs blfs o b b blfs blfs y ar and for for os of no o b ru. ru . s s guarand guarand bcaus bcau s for os os par causs a produc produc blf consu ru ru condons condons for b lf lf as wll I nk w can now s ow arous pars of Dadsons aack on skpcs f ogr dsquoaona ory of ru s nndd o sow ow w can a corrspondnc wou confronaon fronaon rby aodng aodng ncssy ncss y of fndng fndng a lga way of coparng wo dsn ds nc c rals: oug and raly. prncpl of cary s nndd o plac srong ls on rang of blfs a w can nllgbly arbu o or blrs rby rulng ou possbly of copng syss of blf radcally dffrn fro our own. xals sancs s nndd o guaran a clos f bwn anngfulnss and ru for a cnrally poran s of blfs naly occasonblfs rby sowng a for s blfs blfs s no possbl poss bl for all or or os os of o b fals fals prncpl of cary s n nokd o xnd s cla byond occasonblfs o nr sys blfs ) Fnally Fnally th appal o cornc cornc s nnd nndd d o do a las wo ng ngss : ( ) o prod bass for noon of usfc us fcao aon n ndd for knowldg knowldg and (2) o prod a way of sowng ow dsp srong prsupon agans s occasonblfs can sos b fals akn ogr s labora argun s nndd o rscu us fro a sandard for of skpcs by sowng wy s possbl for all our our bl blf fss o b fals ogr ogr (3 9 )
86
yhonian Reflecion
e Cein Skep Repy Sne Davdsons agumens ae deed agans Caesan skesm e an fs ask ho a Caesan ske o someone ho hnks ha Caesan skesm demands an anse oud ey. Davdson's anskea agumen s ony as good as s omonen as and eah has been haenged he dsuoaona heoy of uh has no on unvesa aeane and has eeny been seousy haenged by ohn Ehemendy No eveyone agees ha he ne of hay an be used as Davdson aems o use o ue ou he ossby of aday dffeen oneua shemes We mus aso ask hehe Davdsons ausa heoy of beefonen s sef ausbea ueson ha an be anseed ony afe hs oson has been fuy auaed and aed o a de ange of ngus sengs. ha has ye o be done hese ae a moan haenges and n vaous aes Davdson has aemed o anse hem. u nsead of yng o assess he aua mes on boh sdes of hese omex ssues sha as fa as ossbe ake Davdsons oson on s on ems and hen ask hehe s suffen o efue Caesansye skesm he mos naua esonse fo a Caesan o Davdsons anskea agumen s o say ha s fagany uesonbeggng Davdson as e sa ues he neeve suaon as e as he eaheeane suaon as angua n suue neee eahe) Seake Leae)
Objeve Causes
he neee n Davdsons soy assgns meanngs o he seakes ueanes and devavey onens o hs beefs by denfyng hem h he auses ha e hem ha he Caesan ague akes fo ganed he vey on a ssueeabe aess o any aess o he exena ondons ha odue beefs Moe smy Davdsons hoe ogam s en fom a eas sandon and ha n sef s uesonbeggng. don fnd hs ananskea agumen esuasve. f one sas ou as an onooga neasaed as ee behnd he ve of deashen Davdsons easm seem uesonbeg gng. u befoe any of hs an embaass Davdson adeuae ea sons have o be gven fo vegng onooga neasm as he sang ae fo hosoha efeon U suh an agumen s
Exteal Coherentm
18
odued s ue unlea hehe hee s an ueson o eg The soalled olem of he exenal old s self he esul of an exended ee of hlosohzng and s no as some seem o hnk a mve olem ha eve esemologal heo mus addess. f he hlosohzng ha leads o hs olem s flaed hee ma e no suh olem o e solved. We an hoeve u moe essue on Davdsons anskeal agumen askng ho ould handle olems ha ase fom skeal senaos. The annheva examle dsussed n hae 4 ll see ou uoses. To dfea Davdsons agumen e need onl sho ha s ossle fo us o e massvel msaken n ou elefs oneng he old aound us. Well seems ossle hnk ale onevale magnale ha am nohng moe han a an susended n a va h m exeenes onolled a gou of leve neuohsologss. Does hs exemlf he ossl ha mgh have all he elefs no have e mos of hem e false? Davdson's anse o hs s no Sne he onen of elefso a leas he on en of as elefss deemned ha auses hem ou enva ed elefs ould no onsue false elefs aou he exeal old fo he ould no e aou he exeal old a all n sho he on luson deved fom hs skeal senao auall egs he ueson agans Davdsons oson assumng ha he onen of a elef s ndeenden of s auses. f Davdson's heo s oe hen he skeal senao e have skehed s oneuall noheen. Suose hoeve ha he an n he va s hooked o a seake and an n hs a seak" o us The hsologs sends some ele al mulses no he an and a voe fom he seakes sas am alkng hough a osk glen." The hsologs smles and sas We eall fooled Vaman ha me." Bu f Donald Davdson ee esen he ould on ou ha Vaman has een fooled onl f e nee he ods am alkng hough a osk glen" o mean ha e do hese ods and e have ve good eason o suose ha Vaman does no use hem h hs meanng. Vaman's esonse as eled a ause enel dffeen fom he sensaons aused alkng hough a osk glen. So e ae ak o h faml a on ha Vaman s no deeved n elevng ha he s alkng hough a osk glen fo hs emaks do no efe o a osk glen. Thngs eome moe dfful hen e ask ha on Davdson's heoy Vaman is seakng o hnkng aou fo hee an aeal o he angula elaonsh examned aove seems holl ou of lae. Davdson esonds o hs ueson n Esemolog Exe nalzed" hee he s dsussng a ve smla o hs on found n he ngs of Tle Buge
1
yhnian Reflectn Burge onider a ae muh ike tandard brainintheat ae and ho hy uh a brain annot or ong) be radially deeied about it enironment. approe o thi argument haing oten ued it myel anyhing i yematially auing ertain experi ene (or erbal repone) tha i what the thought and utter ane are abou Thi rue out ytemati error nohing i y tematially auing the experiene there i no ontent to be mitaken about EE, 99)
ake o be e lea mlaon of s assage a f e sologs s unssema n usng e ban obes o ndue exe enes en e ougs ave no onen; f on e oe and e s ssema n usng em en Vamans ougs ae abou ese ban obes f e neuosologs s ssema e anno fool aman fo long f e neuosologs s unssema en a man wll no ave a deemnae belef fo no deemnae onen as been esablsed Tus fo Davdson as fo uge ese ske al senaos ae flawed oug esuosng an neals aoun of seman onen a e ee Suose s agumen s oe Te ske as Davdson ues m olds a s ossble fo mos of ou smles lanes belefs abou e wold o be false Davdson esonds Tose belefs would no be e belefs e ae ndeed e mg no be belefs a all unless mos of em wee ue u now a new and euall feasome skeal allenge ases Couldn be msaken n m belef a ave belefs; and don e skeal senaos sow ow s ould be ossble On an neals semans a onans some ng lke e doxas nle s s no ossble sne on su a eo e onen of ou belefs s lagel aessble o us. Davdson ejes su neals eoes fo among oe ngs e nks a e lead o an unesolvable skesm He u s wa n A Coeene Teo of Tu and Knowledge" s onal T ng o make meanng aessble as made u naessble" 33 Davdson seems o ave falen no e evese dfful n agung a mos of ou bas belefs f we ave an) mus be e e seems o ave foelosed e ossbl of esablsng a we ave an su belefs a all. We an all s e seman udae of Caesan skesm s suel no less alaable an e ognal.
The Pyhonian Skeptic Reply seems a e Caesan ske s no wou esoues n esondng o Davdsons allenge u nsead of usung a
Exea Cherenism
189
maer furher, sh o ask a dfferen ueson ven f Davdsons argumen, or one of he same general ye, s suessful agans Caresan skesm, ha fore ll have agans Pyrronan skesm of he knd examned n s ork? he anser s none hasoever. Davdsons argumen s narroly foused on skes ho lam ha s ossle for / all our elefs o e false ogeher" 3 9 and hen from hs go on o dra skeal onlusons. Davd sons sraegy s o lok hs skeal argumen y denyng he remse from hh sars. Ye, dese e romse n he le / A Coherene heory of ruh and Knowledge," Davdson does no re sen, even n oulne, a fully develoed heory of knoledge n ar ular, he aknoledges ha one enral ask remans o e done We aot ala draw the pitureque ad pleaat oluio that all true elie otitute kowledge or though all o a elieer elie are to ome extet jutiied to him ome may ot e juti ied eough or i the right way to otitute kowledge The ge eral preumptio i aor o the truth o ele ere to reue u rom a tadard orm o keptiim y howig why it i impoi le or all our elie to e ale together. Thi leae almot utouhed the tak o peiyig the oditio o kowledge. 3 9
Wha has een lef unouhed, as he assage ndaes, s he rolem of usfaonha have alled he Agra rolem. Davd son sees learly somehng ofen mssed y ohers Dssolvng skeal argumens ha urn on a ad heory of meanng does no, srag off, elmnae all skeal rolems. n fa, s hard o see o he Agra role us on uesons of meanng a all, and s hus eually hard o see ho a orre heory of meanng ould ad n s soluon or dssoluon. Why, hen, f Davdsons oson has no earng on he Aa rolem, have sen so muh me onsderng ? rs, f orre, Davdsons exeals verson of he oherene heory of ruh does rovde a ne resonse o a sandard hallenge o oherensm he ossly ha a oheren sysem of elefs may sll e massvely n error Hs suggeson ha hs os sly anno be elmnaed on evdenal grounds, bu an be loked usng a orre heory of meanng, s a ne dearure ha demands anvassng. f sound, ould reresen an moran se for he resusaon of he oherene heory of knoledgehe develomen of a oherene eory of usfaon ould e he nex se. s moran o see ha he frs se n hs roe remans n ueson. eond, many seem o hnk he exeals semans hamoned y Davdson Burge and ohers rovdes a ne and oerful resonse o he skes hallenge n
190
yrrhonan Reflecton
geneal hose ho make suh lams usualy have some ofen unsefed veson of Caesan skesm n mnd. Seeng ha Pyhonan skesm n he fom of he Aga olem an su vve even f headay s made agans Casan skesm shos ha he ask of efung skesm s muh lage han has een geneally suosed.
Noe 1 aido i ot aloe i omiig a oeree teory wit a exteralit emati or wa e te irt to do o i later writig Wittgetei dal ommitmet to oli ad to te pli arater o lagage a alo e iewed a a kid o oeretim omied wit a exteralit emati at aido ad Wittgetei tog tartig rom dieret plae ow remarkale imilaritie o a mer o da metal poit Ti will eome lear i apter 1 ad appedix B were Wittgetei iew o tee ad related matter are examied ad eal ated 2 aido 1986 3 aido 1991. 4 ortomig itatio to maript opy S ae ilded te raketed expreio i ti paage eae witot tem te paage i eaily miread Paretetial page itatio i ti apter are rom " Coeree eory o Trt ad owledge le oterwie idiated 6 Hi reao ppoe i te traparet ailre o teorie o kowl edge to deal wit keptiim we a demad or orotatio i made 7 Ti modet erio o oeretim may aoid te arge tat made agait Boor tat oeretim yield a tioal eqialet o keptiim 8 Tog e ote te diilty i peakig aot mot o a pero elie aido otie to e ti prae ad ariat o it trogot i eay. 9 It i ot lear to me wy aido ere peak imply o oitey rate ta oeree. Te appeal to esumv jtiiatio i alo p io t will ot go ito ti ie agai 10 ti otext aido raie a importat prolem tat mot oeretit ae igored "Sie o pero a a ompletely oitet ody o oitio oeree wit which elie reate a premptio o tt (38 apter 8 arged tat te poiility tat all ma elie ytem are ioitet raie erio prolem or tadard orm o oer etim. Tog aido adidly ote ti diilt ad importat pro lem e doe ot preet a awer to it 1 1 aido ite i "Tre to te at aido 1 969 ad "O te Very dea o a Coeptal Seme aido 1 973-74.
Exteal Coherentim
9
2 Thi paage i rom Rorty 979 78. 3 aido attriute thi iew o meaig to oth Quie ad um mett t i a roadly held iew o meaig oe that Wittgetei uect to deatatig attack i the irt part o hi Philoophical Inetiation. hi eay "Sujectie terujectie Ojectie aido oer a elegat accout o the two way i which the priciple o charity goer tralatio y ditiguihig what he call the priciple o coherece ad the priciple o correpodece The Priciple o Coherece prompt the iterpreter to dicoer a degree o logical coitecy i the thought o the peaker the Pri ciple o Correpodece prompt te iterpreter to take the peaker to e repodig to the ame eatre o the world that he (the iter preter) would e repodig to uder imilar circumtace Both priciple ca e (ad hae ee) called priciple o charity oe priciple edow him with a modicum o logical truth the other edow him with a degree o true elie aout the world. (aid o 992 6) 5 Sometime we do thi or example whe we are ealuatig eyewit e tetimoy 6 Thi coceit trike me a uortuate though ot i eemig to make aido theor ret o diie aor Noody thik i dim eough to read him i thi way. The example i uortuate ecaue a we hall ee, it tie the heaely iterpreter' epitemic had i a way that may eem quetioeggig 7 See ogeli 9 87 chapter ad 2. 8 aio ue all o thee qualiyig term i oe place or aother. Sometime he peak o "mot o our elie withot qualiicatio 9 See Etchemedy 990 20 See or example the ixt chapter o Cheriak 986 2 owe thi poit to Hilar olith hi opiio the propect or the ucceul deelopmet o uch a caual theor o cotet are ot promiig 22 or a critical ealuatio o aido iew o thee matter ee i particular LePore 9 86 23 aido here peciically cite two work y Burge "Carteia Error ad the Ojectiity o Perceptio 986) ad "diidualim ad the Metal 979) 24 coeratio Walter Siottrmtrog made the poit thi way aido argumet eem to leae ope the radical keptical poiility that mot o thoe thig that we take to e true elie are either ale elie or ot elie at all
10 Pyrrhonism
eoPyrrhonism A he begnnng of hae ehong deas fom he InoduonI desbed he Phonan ske as goig through the word laimig to kow ertai thig, ad ometime laimig to e ure or ee aolutely dead ertai o them The Pyrrhoia kepti reely partiipate i ommo epi temi pratie, drawig o all the pratial dititio emodied i them Thee pratie are ote allile Ote thi alliility doet matter, ie the prie o eig wrog i ot high Whe the ot o error eome exeie the kepti like other may eek way to improe thee pratie o that the hae o error are redued Pitured thi way the kepti i rather like Hume mod erate kepti whom he improperly otrated wih the Pyrrhoia kepi) atiou agreeale ad ae
I agued agans anes and some ohes ha hs aessenall Fede's aof eang Phonan skesm s exuall o e I l no go no ha agan I ould hoeve lke o esond o anohe omlan ha mgh be exessed n hese ods If a ha Phonan skesm amouns o s hadl a semen of skesm a all. Suh a veson of skesm s e hn A fs glane Phonan skesm ma ndeed seem mld n omason h vaous foms of Caesan skesm. hee s somehng exhlaang almos gdd n he hough ha all of ou ommon belefs abou he old mgh jus be false and Caesan skeal senaos seem o ase jus hs ossbl n a vvd fom u as have sad a numbe of mes Caesan skesm seems o el on an aneeden hlosohal ommmen o he a of
12
ynsm
193
dasa con a a Pyrronan skc would no ak o Pyrrons, arsansyl skc s no skcal noug Mor o on, dos no ak radcalglobally dslocang scnaros o nroduc susnson of blf I s qu suffcn o noand dwll on fac a our rcal clas ar ad n fac of uncckd, oug cckabl, dfaors s s an oran on o ak, bcaus g b ossbl o brng for arguns sowng a skcs basd on skcal scnaros s concually ncorn Davdson's arguns, wc wr xand arlr, f ad good g sow s skcal robls rasd by cckabl bu uncckd dfaors canno b dal w n a aralll fason Gvn any rcal assron, s always ossbl ndd always asyo on o so unlnad (oug lnabl ossbly a can dfa s cla Nong lk brans n vas ar ndd o acv s uros I dosn vn ak a gra dal of ngnuy o ras s skcal doubs rlanc on xals nvolvng arc wll usually b suffcn Dwllng on unlnad dfaors can roduc skcal doubs no lss srong an os roducd by skcal scnaros If anyng, suaon s wors w unlnad bu lnabl dfaors W rsc o , no ranscndnal syl of argun wll work; only way o lna s dfaors s acually o l na rcognon a w ak knowldg clas wou dong so gvs on as robus a skcal callng as on would lk I s fragly of our coon sc raccs a lads losors no usfcaonals rogras of knd xand n scond ar of s sudy usfcaonals n bo s founda onals and nonfoundaonals ods s an a o scur a suably wd rang of knowldg clas agans skcal callngs u, as w av sn, suc usfcaory rogras nvably ras gra robl cnral ss of Par II of s sudy s a no jusfcaory rogra ss o sow any rosc of solvng gra robl srng of ac oson ss o b wolly xausd n waknsss of s coors W av us arrvd a e followng rsul Rflcon on our ordnary sc raccs rvals r fragly, and wn w urn o sologss for l, w ar dsaond
Again, Is There a Fact of the Matter in Knowing I nally rasd quson wr r s a fac of ar n knowng n caer n osond answrng, for a a sag of
194
Pyrrhonian Reflecion
e nvesgaon I could make no more an e ollong negave on My aalyi implie otig oe way or aoter o ti matter ad ti i preiely eaue otig i ti aalyi eiter priilege or reue to priilege partiular jutiiatory ramework or all tat a ee aid o ar, tere may e oe ultimate jutiiatory rame work tat groud all oter. Tere may e a plurality o jutiia tory ramework tat groud ariou domai o kowledge Tere may e o jutiiatory ramework tat tad up uder te ulim ited eigteig o rutiy. at, ti tird poiility trike me a eig orret, ut tat i ot ometig tat ollow rom te aalyi o kowledge laim ae preeted t i ometig tat a to e ow i detail y eamiig ariou attempt to produe piloopial teorie o utiiatio. Tat te tak o te eod part o ti tudy
Wha concluson can e dran no a he suvey o jusca ory eores as een roug o a close? I ave no aemed o survey every heory o emrcal juscaon and o so a eac o em s unsasacory I ave no n leu o s aemed o roduce a sysemac and exausve classcaon o every ossle eory o emrcal uscaon and en on e ass o s classcaon argued a every ossle ye o eory o uscaon mus e nadeuae he classcaory sceme I nroduced n caer 6 served only exosoy uroses I ave done nohng more an examne a se o characersc heores o uscaon eac o c can e aken as reresenave o s on kn. My clam s ha e heores ave examned come nowhere near rovdng an adeuae resonse o he Agra rolem I oes no seem lkely ha any o e eores examned can avod he knds o crcsms I ave leveled roug some refinement. I s ossle ha someone ll roduce a olly ne sor o eory o emrcal juscaon a ll rovd a sasacory soluon o e Agra rolem or erhas someone ll accomlsh s rough hng uon an uerly novel ay o develong one o e radonal eores o emrcal juscaon I oul e an unseemly dogmasm o rule hese ossles ou n advance. Wa I have red o so usng a numer o exemlary cases s a Pyrrhonan skecsm en aken serously and made a ary o e deae s much more nracale an ose o ave rouce eores o emrcal us caon have generally suosed As ar as I can see e challenge o Pyrronan skecsm once acceed s unanserale.
195
Pyhonsm
Suosng hen ha an aeuae heoy of emal jusfa onha s an aeuae esonse o he Aga olems no ossle ho oes hs ea on he ueson hehe hee s a fa of he mae n knong? Pa of he anse smly eeas hngs sa n Chae A a aula level of suny hee ll e a fa of he mae o fas of he mae) ha ll sele he ueson hehe somehng s knon o no he ual ueson s hehe any jusfaoy oeue s vlege n he sense ha jusfaon of ha kn s fnal. f he Aga olem anno e solve hen he anse o ha ueson s no. Fom hs follos ha n he sense n hh hlosohes n aula jusfaon heoss) have sough a fa of he mae fo knolege hee s none f he Aga olem anno e solve hee s no eason o suose ha knolege of he kn sough y jusfaonals hlosohes exss.
The Pyhonists Use o pistemic Tems hs susson egan h he onen ha Pyhonan skesm s so mlso anoyneha haly mes he le of skesm shoul e lea y no ha hs s no so. Hee hoeve a on en of a evese so esens self Havng unleashe ha amouns o an unmgae skesm h ega o emal jusfaon ho an he Pyhonss n goo fah onnue o emloyaaenly hou ualmssana ems of esem aasal? he anse s ha he Pyhons s une no onsan o onfom hs avesnlung hs lngs aveso hlosohal sanas. n aly lfe levels of esem sanas ae fxe ofen uneflevely) y he exgenes of he gven onex he Pyhons unogmaally aes he eveyay esem aes of hs ulue A hs on hoeve s moan no o u Pyhonsm no ye anohe veson of jusfaonalsm y eang as a soal heoy of jusfaon. he Pyhons e mgh say falls n h ohes n he moes unogma esem aes he Pyhons lke ohes smly enes no ha Wgensen alls foms of lfe an oes so hou elevng ha hese foms of lfe ae jusfe. Fuhemoe f e ess fo jusfaonan hee he anen Pyhonss an Wgensen onue ukly eome aae ha none s fohomng Why on e feel hs lak of jusfaon? Well hlosohzng
196
Pyrrhonian Refection
an make one feel ; bu h f s so ead a hand don e fee n ou eveda use of ems of esem evaluaon? he anseand hee I foo Wgensenles n he a n hh e aue and hen emlo odna ones Onl ael ae e aual old ha he oedues e lean o emlo ae oe oedues and ae sl s he oeness auall oven In shool fo exame e ae no augh ha efeene books ae elable; e ae sm augh o look hngs u n efeene books In geneal e ae augh from books h no doub as on he elabl. I s onl lae f a al ha e ae old ha some books ae no elable ehas beause he have been aelessl en o ae ou of dae A no on n ou eduaon ae e esened evdene fo he gen eal elabl of efeene books .! Agan e ae no augh ha ou senses ae eabe Ou aens and eahes ea ou senses as eable unless ha s he have easons o suose ha he ae no Ou aens and eahes el on he elabl of ou senses n ode o eah us udmena uhs abou he old aound us Lae e gan ue sef nfomaon onenng hose oasons hee ou senses ma msead" us Aeng he senses as elabe s a of he bakgound fameok e aue n he oess of eang ohe hngs Leanng hen he senses anno be used onsues a mno adusmen a fneunng hn hs bakgound fameok. I hnk e an no see h skeal doubs do no have a uhase on ou eveda ognve aves I s a of ou anng n he use of odna ones nludng odnar esem ones o exlude o bake suh doubs hs I hnk s ha Wgensen s sessng n he follong assages: ae 472 When a hild lean language it lean at the ame time
what i to e inetigated and what not. When it lean that thee i a upoad in a oom, it int taught to dout whethe what it ee ate on i till a upoad o only a kind o tage et ae 473 ut a in witing we lean a patiula ai om o let
te and ten ay t late o we ean it the taility o thing a the nom, whih i then ujet to alteation.
Is Skpticism Sttb; I hnk Wgensens anse o hs ueson s no M anse o s es Peas susng seems o make e dffeene hh anse e gve fo as sha ague he hallenge of Phonan skesm emans even f anno be u no ods Sne he
yrrhnim
17
suosed unstatablty of sketsm s sometmes tougt to be a reason for reetng t I'll look at ts matter n some detal As I read m Wttgensten seems to be sayng tat te term to kno" and oter terms of estem arasal aear n our dsourse n ust tose rumstanes ere routne unreflete roedures are lkely to roe unrelable In my ords terms of es tem arasal fnd ter tyal emloyment n ontexts ere ger or loser metods of srutny ae been trggered In tyal settngs te lam to kno sometng s to assert tat tese no ger standards ae been met Here te lam to kno amounts to te lam of ang adeuate reasons of te sort no demanded. f Wttgenstens refletons are orret tey exlan y t seems odd for Moore to lam to kno su tngs as tat e ossesses to ands or tat te orld as exsted for many years before s brt. ese are odd tngs to say sne notng as ut tem n ueston It s for ts reason tat Wttgensten tnks tat Moore n attakng te dealsts by tng su unontested fats as atually msused te erb to kno." arly n On Certanty e omments �C We jut do ot ee how ery peialized the ue o I kow i
Next gen Wttgenstens at least neardentfaton of te meanng of an exresson t ts use n te language ts furte suggests tat te meanng of I kno" s gen by ts ery sealzed use. s use aears n ontexts ere tere s some ratal reason for doubtng and terefore a ratal ont to sulyng reasons tat ll resole tese doubts t s n su ontexts Wttgensten seems to be sayng tat te exresson I kno" fnds ts use and ene ts meanng If all ts s orret ten te meanng of I kno" s ted to tese seal sorts of ontexts and en used outsde tem te exresson loses ts meanng s leads Wttgensten to te follong onluson or eras reommendaton O C 260 I would like to reere the expreio I kow or the ae i whih it i ued i ormal liguiti exhage
Lets look at 260 arefully If e ould reserve te exresson I kno" for tose ases n t s used n normal lngst exanges t ould seem tat e ould ten ae a ne and oerful argument aganst sketsm erytng ll deend on o e take te ord reserve." We mgt eras ust te eole to reserve te exresson kno" for su ases ey mgt ask y tey
198
yrrhonian Reflection
should do hs The reply ha hs wll help hem avod geng enangled n skepal problems mgh be a orre even a usefl hng o pon ou bu would hardly oun as a refuaon of skepsm. OC, 260 wll have fore agans he skep only f s aken as sayng ha we ought o reserve he expresson for hese ases, and he reason ha Wgensen seems o be gvng for hs s ha he expresson know" wll lose s meanng f s use s no so resred. he followng passage from On Cetinty bears drely on hese ssues Ge 392. What I eed to hew i that a dout i ot eceary ee
whe it i poile. That the poiilty of the laguagegame doe ot deped o eerythig eig douted that ca e douted
hnk Wgensen wans o sayand all bu saysha he exluson of suh remoe possbles s par of he meanng, par of he seman onen of knowledge lams f ha s hs poson hen a hs pon par ompany wh hm The bass for hs dsagreemen s derved from Paul Gres dsnon beween wha he use of an uerane onversaonally mplaes and wha he saemen made n usng an uerane au ally says or enals. For Gre onversaonal mplaures arse beause our lngus exhanges are governed by a sysem of on versaonal maxms One suh maxm he alls he rule of qualy. has wo pars The frs ells us no o asser hngs we beleve o be fase; he seond, whh s more o our presen purposes, ells us no o asser hngs for whh we ak adequae evdene. Beause nor mal onversaonal exhanges are goveed by hese maxms when someone assers somehng ha person onversaonally mples, bu does no asser, ha she beleves wha she s asserng and, fur hermore has adequae grounds on behalf of he asserons she makes. To he bes of my knowledge Gre nowhere dsusses he phenomenon have alled varyng levels of sruny bu s easy enough o skeh a onversaoal maxm applable o . n a gven onex he level of sruny or he approprae level of adequay wll be fxed by he purposes and goals of he onversaonal exhange more spefally by he sandardness or nonsandardness of he seng, by he benefs of beng rgh by he oss of beng wrong, by professonal norms, and he ke. n ommon onversa onal xhangs pars o nauraly adop muualy reogned sandards of adequay, and hold eah oher o hem. The onversa onal maxm for levels of adequay hen mgh look lke hs
Pyhonim
199
Mak yo oatioa otitio tat ty oom to t tadad o adqay mtally adoptd witi t oa tioal xag
t is ossible to attemt to raise these standards, bt doing so we are sall exected to signal this know this ma seem farfetched finick, niticking, etcbt . ") his sggests that a seemingl remote ossibilit is releant We can also sa something, then cancel its standard conersational imlication (t is ossible that both back sstems failed simltaneosl, bt thats hardl likel) Here a ossibilit is set aside as too remote Bt if no sials are gien to the contrar, it is a standard imlication of raising an objection that it is congrent with the leel of scrtin goeing the conersational exchange his is all too qick, bt erhas it is sfficient to make the oint that rice has made, that it is eas to confond semantic con tent with content conersationall imlied oing back to Dretskes examle of the ainted mle discssed in chater 4 it is natral to sa that, in identifing an animal as a zebra one meant a zebra rather than, sa, an anteloe, not a zebra rather than, sa, a ainted mle here is a erfectl good sense of meant" where this is correct n identifing the animal as a zebra it was no art of m inntion to rle ot the ossibilit that the animal was a ainted mle Yet if m assertion is tre, then this remote ossibilit is rled ot he same oint holds against Wittgenstein f what he is saing is that ignoring or bracketing remote ossibilities is art of what is meant b claims to know things, then he is right in a wa and wrong in a wa n making eerda knowledge claims, do not retend to hae elim inated all defeators A great man sch ossible defeators are siml set aside, ignored, or bracketed Still, if one of these bracketed remote ossibilities is realized or is likel to be realized, this will bear dircly on m knowledge claim Sose, howeer, someone restated the argment this wa f remote ossibilities are not bracketed, or emirical knowledge claims will alwas fail Bt if all of or emirical knowledge claims failand that is something that we can see in adancethen we arrie at the absrd conclsion that or langage contains an elabo rate sstem of statements that in eer instance of teir se is false " he answer is that, in dail life, we nreflectiel bracket remote defeating ossibilities, and for this reason find it ossible to make eistemic claims his, howeer, is a Prrhonian, not an antiPrrhonian, oint t is ossible to dscib those circmstances
200
yrrhonan Refection
unde whih we empoy episemi aims in a nonenaive way his desipion howeve does no show ha ou episemi pa ies ae egiimae If anyhing when hei aua gound ae eveaed fo wha hey ae, hei egiimay seems o be os My basi poin whih I have made a numbe of imes is ha adia sepia doubs an be aised wihou appeas o sepia senaios Sepia doubs ae eady a hand o anyone who seps ba and maes ou odinay usifiaoy poedues obes of suiny his is no somehing we odinaiy do I is even some hing we esis doing Ye one we sep ba and ae hose poe dues ha goven ou hough as obes of hough we anno hep being su by hei fagiiy Ou ogniive aiviies depend on ou aing fo ganed hings ha a any ime an e us down o beome genuine obes of doub As Wigensein noes on a numbe of oasions i is no ha ou inuiies ey on hings ha we anno doub; insead hey es on hings ha we do no doub o his I wi ony add ha, one hese nondoubed ommimens ae sufaedand aen seiousy by being made obes of inuiry as a matt of fat doub foows I see no eason why his doub when invoed by efeions on he goundessness of ou beieving, anno be pu ino wodssuh wods as When i omes igh down o i I eay do no now ha o I is eay supising how ie I have o say in suppo of my beief ha wi be msadng o mae suh emas in a onex whee ohes ae opeaing and assume ha you ae opeaing) a a noma o unheighened eve of suiny Bu his unwaned onvesaiona impiaion an be aneed in he same way ha ohe unwaned onvesaiona impiaions an be aneed simpy by expiiy aneing i I seems o me hen ha hee is no good eason fo eeing sepia asseions on he gounds ha hey ae meaningess and no good eason fo no expessing hem on he gounds ha hey ae inexpessie uoed by Gie we now see ha he use of an expession may be oddeven exeedingy oddye fo a ha be meaningfu and pehaps ue ha boady speaing is he saus I assign o he Pyhoniss sepia ponounemens. I is fo his eason ha I find vaious inguisi efuaions of sepiism unpesuasive Having said ha, I now wan o mae a seond, pehaps moe surpising esponse o suh inguisi aas on sepiism Even if i oud be shown ha sepia doubs ae inexpessibe, his ned no onsiue a efuaion of sepiism Reuning o Wigensein we find he es us ha i is diffiu
yonsm
201
to relze the groundlessness o our belevng (oe, 160 Well, sup pose we do relze ths, wht then? s ths soethng we re llowed to sy? we n sy t, hvent we nged to put our rdl, unre strted setl doubts nto words wthout destroyng ther sense? n btob pssges, Wttgensten sees to te two ute d erent vews on ths tter C, 69 wante to out whether thi i a han how oul aoi outing whether the wor "han ha any meaning? So that i omething that eem to know ater a
xept or the ourren o the word see, ths sounds le stndrd lngust/trnsendentl rguent gnst septs nnot, exept erhps n extrordnry rustnes, doubt tht hve hnd, or suh doubt would deprve the ter hnd o ts enng, nd thus the doubt would lose ts ontent There re other pssges n Wttgenstens wtngs tht see to sy uh the se thng, nd t s esy to suppose tht ths s Wttgenstens und entl response to septs Yet n the very next entry Wttgen sten dopts derent nd, to y nd, uh deeper resonse C, 30 But more orretly The at that ue the wor "han an al the other wor in my entene without a eon thought nee that houl tan eore the ay i wante o muh a to tr outing their meaninghew that aene o out eong to the eene o the languagegame that the quetion ow o know rag out the languagegame or ele oe away with it
ere Wttgensten s plnly not rgung tht our seure grsp o the enng o the word hnd gurntees tht t lest or the ost prt) nnot be sten n llng soethng hnd er he s ng the deeper pont tht our grsp o the enng o the word hnd nd our blty to be ostly rght n dentyng hnds re nterrelted, nd boh depend on the t tht we dont dag ou h languag gam by pressng the ueston ow do now ? So there s no rguent here tht nvoes the enngulness o ln guge s the gurntor o truth ur nowledge tht ths s a hnd nd our understndng o the enng o the ter hnd stnd nd ll together. Wttgensten s rght, under the ressure o unre strted hllenge, they both ll Sets, ten serously, opens the byss o ennglessness thn we ght be ble to see why Wttgensten, under the nluene o suh resonng, would resst puttng septl doubts nto words t would be n ttept to sy soethng tht nnot be
202
yrrhonian Reflecon
sd bu nly swn Ts ns beween syng nd swng ges b e Tatat wee ws ne gensens ledng des ws ls dsnn seems me gensen neve bndned even s spe esns nvkng nged ve me Twd e end On Certaint we nd s dne eemegng pesely e pn w e s yng lk dely bu e undelyng supps u lnguge gmes ac 50 m I ot gettig loer ad loer to ayig tat i te ed
logi aot e deried? You mut look at te pratie o la guage te you wil ee t.
Amng e ngs we e suppsed see we l s e gund lessness u belevng (OC 66) Bu gensen seeng u beles s gundless n ly undeus e sus s beles bu ls undeus e sus s pssble bjes bele me pssble bes dub Te byss gensen ees n OC 70 s ndesbble bu mes sel mnes e n nw I n mke sense u gensens seem ngly mbvlen ude wd skepsm Tugu s plspl wngs e ees sepl gumens Cesn knd T s e ejes de sepl gumens e bsed n w e nw lled skepl sens He lds su dubs e pseuddubs beuse ey dm n pnple n pedue nsweng em In s sudy I ve n ned my nd n e quesn wee gensen nd es e g n nkng glbl skepsm s nd n be dsmssed s menngless I m nlned nk nn bu nng n s sudy uns s me Tug e lely ejes esn skepsm seems me gensen s lely mmed e vesn sepsm I ve lbeled Pynn skepsm. e lds seems ld s mmmen nn be expessed dely bu mus nsed me sel mnes n n wy es b mges s mmmen Vewed n s lg wee Pynn dubs e sble s I nk ey e unsble s gensen seems sugges bemes me elve ndeene sne e skepl llenge emns n ee se
A Temporary topping Poin t Ts sudy lls n w ps n e sue les my seem exb nmpble endenes. Te s seems embdy ldsned plspng n s emp gve n nlyss nwl
03
yrrhnm
ede; he nen of he second par seems o e o undercu phloso phy Ths may seem nconssen n fac he wo pars of he sud f oeher n he follown ways rs seems o me o e poss le o ve an accoun of he way n whch erms of epsemc apprasal funcon whou makn any commmens o susanve clams aou wha s and wha s no known realze ha hs s a conroversal clam and chaper have red o say somehn n suppor of n any case do no hnk he analyss n ar reles on he knd of phlosophcal commmens challened n ar Second here s an mporan sysemac connecon eween he wo pars of hs sudy f he analyss n ar I s correc nclud n he noon of shfn levels of scruny hen we can see how demands for phlosophcal modes of usfcaon can sprn que naurally from our ordnary concep of knowlee. akes nohn more han reflecon on our ornary modes of usfcaon o feel he need for somehn more Our knowlede clams have an oec ve componen Alhouh knowlede clams are always made whn resrced frameworks hey are no relavzed o hese frameworks n he lanuae of ar he demand for adequae rounds s no relavzed o a parcular framework wh a fxed level of scruny even houh he assessmen of a responsle epsemc performance s s hs dspar eween he oecv demands of he adequaerounds clause and he relavzed demands of he epsemcresponsly clause ha once perceved eneraes he demand for phlosophcal heores of usfcaon An aemp o ranscen our acual modes of usfcaon s an mmedae and naural consequence of non her fraly hese reflecons hen seem o yeld a dual concluson rs yrrhonan ous are he naural and nellle resul of he unre srced examnaon of our epsemc pracces Second yrrhonan dous once rased seem ncapale of resoluon
Notes C On Cerany Wittgntin 1969) 600. What kind o ground ha or truting txt ook o xprimntal phyic ha no groun or not truting thm trut thm know how uch ook ar proucdor rathr li know ha om idn ut it do not go ry ar and i o a ry cat trd kind I ha hard n and rad ariou thing 2 S 243
204
yhonian honi an Reflection Reflectio n
3 ee C 6 . 4 eo eo 43 o o he he Phloohcal Phloohcal I I vego veg o Wgee a, "or a lage la o aehough o or all whh we employ he word meaig i a e deied hu he meag o a word i i ue he laguag laguage e i o lear lear rom he ex why why Wigee ae a e h h do do re i a qualied orm 5 ee aul Gre Gre "Logi " Logi ad Coerao, Coerao, repr repred ed re 9 89 89 ee , or exampl example, e, C 23 232, 2, 342 , ad 509 6 ee, 7 ee, ee , or or example example,, C, 80 80 8 a ad 4 8 Thompo Clarke make a parallel parallel po oerg oerg Carea Carea kep im i Clarke, 97.
A ppendx B : Two Wttgenstens
hrgh hs wrk hve rele n es erve fr Wgen sens ler wrngs where he reecs ll es se hlshy sr grn r vnce r cn cgnve cves. On hs reng Wgensen s he rgc neyrrhns. here re hwever her srns n Wgensens ler hlshy h nen f hlshcl hlshcl sfcnl sfcnl sgges h he ws n n nen s n l s frs sly n nen f ne versn f jsf cnls nely fnnls. Mre secfclly here re fs n Wgensens ler wrngs h sgges h he sly nne ne versn f jsfcnls nely fnnls n fvr f nher versn nely hls r cherens. T he exen h hs s re Wgensen s n neyrrhnn rejecn reje cngg ll frs f hlshcl sfcn sfcn s nse nse rsn f rclr rclr versn f f jsfcnls js fcnls ne n e wh s rs n ern els. r wn f eer ne shll cll hs secn srn he nnyrrhnn se f Wgensens ler hlshy. sees cler e nw s hs n efre h h neyrrhnn n nnyrrhnn cens ly rn rles n Wg Wgensens ensens ler l er hlshy nw nclne re WgenWgensens ler wrngs wrngs s cnsn le le eween hese w secs f wrngs gs we fn f n srng rve rve plac hs er hs hgh. hese wrn ler fnnls hery wh nnfnnls hery drve cnsnly eng cre sees sccessflly sees n y n sng rve elne hlshy lgeher hs s cnflc eween ng hlshy n ng wy wh shll exne he nnyrrhnn sde f Wgensen's ler hlshy wrkng n he ssn h n hlshcl sn cer cern n cnces re r e ssgne rvlege ss hs h s rvlege rvlege ss hs les w ses rs hese cnces re ssgned fnnl rle whn he hlshcl sn. Here we gh sek f cnce fnnls. Mny hlshers wh re 20
yhonian Reflection
206
anfoundaonals wh rspc o asc proposons ar foundaonals onals wh rspc rspc o wha hy ak o asc a sc concps concps Scond hs concps ar ypcally exempted fom tm ar rad wh rspc A phlosophcal poson s characrzd n par a las y h s sysm complx of h concps assgns hs prvlgd saus For h noPyrrhonan hr ar no prvlgd concps h fundamnal fundam nal da I am pursung pursu ng s found n Wgnsn's Wgns n's lar la r wrngs n rmarks of h followng knd P 97 We are uder te ilusio tat wat s peuliar prooud essetial i our iestigatio resides i its tryig to grasp te iomparale essee o laguage. Tat is te order existig etwee te oepts o propositio word proo trut experiee experiee ad so o Te order is a upeode etweeso to speakupe concept Wereas o ourse i te words "laguage "experi ee "world ae a use, it must e as ume a oe as tat o te words "tale "lamp "door
My noon of a prvlgd concp s a counrpar of Wgnsn's noon of a suprconcp e Ubebegft). hs hn s anohr aspc of h noPyrrhonan poson Phlosophy dpnds for s xsnc on prvlgng cran concps u concps wll no ar hs phlosophcal urdn u vn f Wgnsn was corrc n argng suprconcps for spcal crcsm sms h was no always mmun o hr charms charms n parcular parcular n rjcng rjcng h consllaon c onsllaon of suprconcps undrlyng h Tatatu h somms sms o fall no h rror of rplacng hm wh a rvrs sysm of suprconcps ha movo rplac h suprconcps of h Tatatu wh hr polar oppossconsus h nonPyrrhonan sd of Wgnsn's phlosophy For many admrrs of Wgnsn s prcsly hs nonPyrrhon nonPyrrhonan an sd of o f hs phlosophy phl osophy ha hy fnd fnd aracv From h pon of vw of hs sudy su dy hs nonPyrrho non Pyrrhonan nan lmn n Wgnsns la phlosophy rprsns a rurn o darknss
unng ngs Aound Skchd n road rms Wgnsn's Tatatu s a ypcally Carsan x n favorng aomsm ovr holsm prvacy ovr pulcy hnkng ovr dong
Appendi B
207
Wth me htrl utftn, I wll y tht ptn tht emde thee preferene mmtted t the rten mplex. Wttgenten tmm me ut wth repet t lnguge n h lm l m tht element ele mentry ry prptn prptnthe the unt f repreenrepree nttn n the Tcus ndependent f ne nther 34.3). t me ut n the de f the wrld wth the lm tht the u ul l nexu nexu de nt nt ext ext 136 136 . 1 3 6 1 ) . lthu lthugh gh th th mre dffult t get rret, t l eem ler tht, n the Tcus, lnguge eentlly prte ffr .62). Fnlly, the rtrn gent gent de d e nthng in the wrld, fr the wrld, Wttgenten Wttgente n tell tell u, ndependent ndependent f my wll" 6 .373) .3 73) . here here n wy wy f lterlterng the wrld, thugh my e le t lter my tttude twrd the wrld n ru wy. he wrld f the hppy mn, we re tld, dfferent frm the wrld f the unhppy mn, thugh nt eue hppne r unhppne unhppne h ny effet n the ntentthe ntentthe ft ft f the the wr wrld ld 6.43 ) . en th rd eth, ne mmedt mm edtely ely tru wth the dprty etween the rtrn tndpnt nd ur mmn wy f ewng ewng the wrld. wrl d. he Tcus gn gn whteer plulty t m m mnd nly thrugh eng unflded frm eemngly renle umptn ut wht lnguge nd the wrld mut e le n rder fr lnguge t repreent r pture the wrld. One the eemngly renle umptn re reeted, the ptn le t fre. In h lter wrtng, Wttgenten dd nt reet the rtrn ptn n tt. Fr exmple, he neer ge up the de tht lgl ntnt well numerld nt tnd fr r repreent et. he ntrutt ew f mthemt dumrted n the em e entr entrll feture feture f h lter phlphy f mtheTcus eme mt. I d nt thn he eer fully ge up the de tht there re ertn thng tht nnt e d ut nly hwn. here re ther mprtnt rryer well. Wht he dd reet, rt nd rnh, were the three dtrne tht me up wht I he lled the rte n mplex. Our quetn here whether n ng he mply reered prrte nd therey epted new ytem uper r prleged nept. h mplex uetn, ut the nwer t t, thn, thn, ye, t let metme. met me. the extent tht th rret, Wttgenten Wttgenten lter phlphy phlphy nt deute t t wn tn t n drd, ne thee tndrd pply eully t upernept f eery nd hu, n ttng Wttgenten lter ue f new et f upernept, I wll e ung ne de f h ptn, the nePyrrhnn Pyrrhnn,, gnt gnt the end end de, d e, the nnPyrrhnn nnPyrrhnn
08
Pyrrhonan Reflecton
Hosm n th Pioopica ntigation Wttgnstn says th foong thngs PI, 47 "Simple mea ot compoite d here the poit i i what ee "compoite? t make o ee at all to peak ao lutely o o th the " imp imple le part part o a chai chair. r. . . . tell omeoe without ay urther eplaatio "What ee eore me i ow compoite comp oite he will hae the righ rightt to ak "What do you mea y compoite'? or there are all ort o thig that ca mea Th Thee quetio " what you you ee compoite? make good ee i it i already etalihed what kid o compleity that i, which particular ue o the wordi i quetio.
otc that Wttgnstn tats spcty an copxty on a pa t aks no o sns to spak of sothng sothng bng absoty copx than t os to spak of sothng bng absoty sp sh to sggst that th sa sot of coatv atonshp xsts btn bt n pats an hos h os Unstanng hat a ho $ s nvovs nstanng hat cont as a patan ths va th contxt f that s coct th sa o occs n spakng abot absout hos an absout pats as n spakng abot absot spcty an absot copxty h o of th Tactatu as Wttgnstn ca to s t as to ntoc an thn to y on th noton of sothng bng absoty sp O ston no s hth Wttgnstn n hs at tngs ta n th spconcpts of atos fo th spconcpts of hos h chag s not asy a goo aganst th Poopca ntgaton h Wttgnstn usay stcts hsf to th ost contxtast ca that can unstan th anng of a t t ony on y by sng ts us us thn th ang angag ag ga h h t fns poynt A hathyvn acapuas onats th Poopica ntgaton t s a cnta th of th opnng s ctons ctons of th Pioopica ntigation that angag conssts of a vaty of tchns an phosoph ph osophss (ncung th atho of th Tactatu) hav bf thsvs by tyng to fn so coon ssnc nnng though a ths vaos ss of angag H ght spak of a pastc contxtas that s a con txtas txtas that os o s not nvov nvov a hostc cotnt cotn t to th xs tnc of a sng ovachng contxt. h oopca ntgaton as a ths ok psnts a pastc ath than a hostc contxtas
Aendix B
209
aso thik uaisti otextuaism is a moe ausibe view tha hoisti otextuaism beause uaism squaes with the udoubted fat that huma beigs a adiay disagee with eah othe i etai aeas, yet sti udestad ad agee with eah othe ove a vey wide age of othe tois t is eve ossibe fo suh mutua udestadig to exist betwee eoe with fudametay diffeet wodviews That my tax aoutat subsibes to a eigio that fid whoy iatioa does ot ead me to questio his abiity to eae my tax etu deed, ou disageemet o eigio, though tota, usuay touhes itte ese The aim £ he beieves ha he wi beieve aythig" is amost aways fase So is its twi, 1 he doubted that, thee woud be othig eft that he woud ot doubt" Thee ae oasios whe we ae iied to egage i suh hyeboe fo hetoia effet hosoha hoism taes these hetoia exesses iteay ad attemts to base a hiosohy o them Whe we tu fom the hilosophical vesiaios to Wittgesteis vey ate efetios foud i O Ceraiy we do seem to fid a aea to a kid of hoism that Wittgestei, by his ow iies, shoud have eeted fat, may assages i O Craiy ae at east omatibe with the view that aguage osists of a uaity of moe o ess autoomous aguage games Coside the aim OC 225 What hold ast to s ot one propositio but a est o propositios
othig hee suggests a ommitmet to a sueest ei bees Th e same modest eadig is ossibe fo the foowig imotat assage: �C 105 testig al oirmatio ad disoirmatio o a hpothesis takes pae aread withi a sstem
om the fat that a testig takes ae withi a system, we aot ife that thee is some system i whih a testig takes ae t the same time, O Ceraiy otais may assages exessig a hoisti vesio of otextuaism that is as obust as oe a imagie �C 0 Our kowledge orms a eormous sstem d ol withi this sstem has a partiuar bit the aue we gie it �C 4 1 1 sa we ame that the earth has eisted or ma ears past or somethig simiar) the o ourse it souds strage that we should ame suh a thig But i the etire sstem o our laguagegames it beogs to the oudatios
210
Pyhonian Reflection
The efeene n 4 1 to the ente sstem of ou languagegames" epesents to m mnd a adal depatue fom the plalst ews of the Philosophical nstigations It also embodes the moe that onets odna onepts (e a sstem o a whole nto spe o pleged onepts In On Crtainty sstems totaltes wholes beome spe o pleged onepts n the two senses ntoded aoe The ae assgned a phlosophal bden and the ae exempted fom examnaton Wttgensten s hadl alone n makng sh a moe to holst esons of ontextalsm The moe ndeed has eahed epdem popotons Ill te jst a few examples fom nfluental phlosophes In an obvios way his srr of inronnd snns is a singl onnd fabri inlding all sins and indd v hing w say abo h world for h logial rhs a las, and no dob many mor ommonpla snns oo ar grman o all opis and hs provid onnions Qin 960 6
Thats Qne hees Rot h holis lin of argmn says ha w shall nvr abl o avoid h "hrmni irlh fa ha w anno ndrsand h pars f a srang lr prai, hor langag, or whavr nlss w know somhing abo how h whol hing works, whras w anno g a grasp on how h whol works nil w hav som ndrsanding of is pars Rory 979 3 9
Smla holst passages ou n la Ptnams despton of the intalst prspcti that he hampons n Rason ruth an His tory Those who dsagee wth h ae sad to hold an extenalst o Gods ee ew of the wold" 49) ganst these unted oes wsh to sggest that these non ontextalzed appeals to wholes o totaltes make no sense I hae no dea what would ont as a whole ultue o a whole language I hae just the same tobles wth Dadsons seemngl moe modest talk about the totalt of a pesons belef Ths stkes me as a pseudototalt as well sne I hae no dea how belefs ae to be ndduated then toted up Dadson omes lose to sang the same thng hr is probably no sfl way o on blifs and so no lar maning o h ida ha mos of a prson's blifs ar r David son 986 308
Bt efeene to no usl wa to ount belefs ndestates the dff lt o one s askng that a numbe be assgned to a pesons bees beoe we ountnane tak about a that pesons belefs
211
Aendx B
Th dffcuy s ha hs oay s so undrspcfd ha s hard o s how vn h noons of moe and ess can gan purchas on Hr w mgh u dacca and say ha hoss ar no suff cny hosc abou h concp of a who. Bu hs s h wrong ack o ak snc nvs a rspons of h foowng knd W can ndrsand wha a who anguag s ony afr w undrsand anguag as a who and snc w hav bary bgun o undrsand our anguag as a who our concp of a who anguag s sf fragmnary and ncomp." Hosc hors ar characrscay sad from crcsm by promssory nos of hs knd. Bu phosophrs who harkn o Wgnsn's ca w no argu n hs dacca fashon nsad hy w amp o brng words back from hr maphysca o hr vryday us Ths w nvov ookng a a vary o naura cons n whch words k a" who" and oa" ar acuay usd. s usfu for am p o rfc on h dffrncs bwn ang a who p a who ma and a who chckn W can aso compar a scns's ak abou h physca unvrs wh phosophrs ak abou hr favor oas. Scnss ask qu dfn qusons abou h oa unvrs how bg s how od s how much mar dos conan And so on Through rcng on hs and ohr amps w gan an undrsandng of h consrans ha aow us o ak us fuy and ngby abou whos oas pars and so forh. f w do hs w w b sruck by h absnc of hs sandard con srans n h wrngs of hosc phosophrsncudng Wgn sn n hs hosc moods.
Pubt Th scond faur of h arsan comp nod abov s ha assgns a prvgd saus o h ndvdua's prva sfconscousnss . ndd h docrn ha phosophzng shoud bgn OI, pr haps has no ohr choc bu o bgn wh h dvrancs of sfconscousnss s vruay dfnv of wha w ca mod phosophy s prcsy hs mov o h subc ha gvs Dscars h dsncon of bng h ahr of mod phosophy Though hr ar som dffcu conrary s prhaps .64) n hs rgard h Tcttus sms o sand squary n h arsan radon Ths coms ou n passags of h foowng knd 62 Th word s my word 63 am my word Th mcrocosm. 663 . A dah h word dos no ar bu coms o an nd
212
yrrhonan Reflecton
I s har no o ae hese passages as sopss an nee Wgensen esres hem hs ay hmsef hough he goes on o say ha propery unersoo sopssm an reasm amoun o he same hng 6 s no o my presen purposes o ry o unrave he Traaran enfaon of sopssm h pure reasm In he en seems e more han a uff Cerany Wgensen no reurn o hs am n hs aer rngs Ths s no o say ha Wgensen for go aou sopssm nee s no an exaggeraon o say ha n hs aer rngs Wgensen as oeed h hs proem For Wgensen he ony ay o avo sopssm s o ree he on epua onfusons ha generae Ths s o e one Wgensen hough y shong ha sueve ueranes or saemens aou he mena o no funon n he a ha phosophers have ommony suppose hey o In paruar hey are no repors aou prvae mena oes or happenngs aesse ony o he person ho experenes suh oes or happenngs ere I no sh o examne Wgensens varous posve aemps o gve a orre aoun of he ay n hh frsperson psyhooga ueranes funon (eg he noonershp aoun n he Blue Boo or he expresson heory of he Phloophal netaton an Zettel) or o I sh o examne all he moves ha our n ha sreh of ex n he Phloophal netaton ha s sa o onan he prvaeanguage argumen I have argue esehere ha he funamena move n he prvaeanguage argumen nvoves he use of a sepa paraox oneng refoong an nereaon aer aken up y Sau Krpke Brefy Hoever a rue s appe s aays posse o fn an nerreaon of he re shong ha he appaon s orre an euay posse o fn an nerpreaon shong ha he appaon s norre If ha s so hen ruefoong seems a sham. Gven hs as he akgroun Wgensen hen rees he possy of here eng a pr vae anguage on he grouns ha suh a anguage ou no avo hs paraoxa resu In Wttenten my on assessmen of hs argumen s ha an e use o sho he ontnent mpossy for reaures suh as ourseves o possess a prvae anguage I furher onueagans Wgensen an many of hs fooersha Wgensen's argumen ou susan no sronger onuson Here I am n funamena sagreemen h Wgensen for eon ha I have ae he onngen mpossy of a prvae anguage he seeme o ho ha a prvae anguage s a onepuaone mgh say ransenenampossy In he seon eon of
Aendx B
213
Wttgensten I calle the arguent intene to show this the public check arguent It is of interest here because it sees to present a clear case of ittgenstein priieging the notion of publicit oer priac an, in the process, treating publicit as a superconcept The public check arguent can be state sipl e are to consier the possibilit that a person ( ) coans a language that is priate in the sense that no other person can tell, een uner the best circustances, whether the ters in this language are being applie correctl or not If anone coul know that the are being applie correctl, onl coul Setting asie the serious proble of how coul acquire such a language, what rules out its possibilit? ittgensteins arguent runs as follows If is speaking a language, then the use of the expressions in his priate language ust be rulegoee f the use of these expressions is ulegoee, there exists a istinction between appling the rule correctl an appling it incorrectl But s language will not support this istinction, for his onl stanar for the correct application of an expression is that it sees to hi to be correct That, howeer, epties the notion of following a rule of content Such rules are nonrules an a language goerne b the is a nonlanguage So a language that is priate in the specifie wa turns out to be no language at all e can next notice how s situation is iproe when he eplos a language where the correctness or incorrectness of the us e of the expressions in his language s capable of a public check It then becoes possible to raw the istinction between soething see ing to to be correct an its actuall being correct Howeer cor rect an application a see to it will be actuall correct onl if it is in conforit with public ules. It is in this wa that content is gien to the istinction between s thinking hiself to be following a rule an s actuall following it For ittgenstein, societ not onl gies his language, but also akes it possible for hi to hae soething that counts as a language Lai out in this barebone wa, the public check arguent inites an obious question How is the istinction between following a rule an onl seeing to follow one sustaine at the public leel hat seres as an inepenent check there ittgensteins answer sees to be that nothng oes (or coul) see this function He further hols that nothg has to Our public language an our public practices general tke e o themselves t sees, then, that our pub lic language has been exepte fro the task of eetng the success conition that le ittgensten to eclare a priate language ipossible This oe appears in passages of the following kin
214
yrrhnian Refen For wha wold hs man "Evn hogh vyon livd ha wi wo was iv i wold sill forFor wha wold i lik for vody o liv ha?Wll old imagin for insan ha popl had a diffrn alls or a hniq whih w shold no all "allang B wold wong s a oo naion wrong To ings diffrn from orslvs i migh look rmly odd Of ors in on sns mahmais is a ranh of knowl dg sill i is also an acvy. And "fals movs an only is as h pion For if wha w now all y ha nam am h rl h gam in whih hr wr fals movs wold hav n arogad (I pp 2627
Rhad Ry apes hs my mnd nfnaesde f W gensens lae phlsphy n hese wds Explanng analy and epsem ahy by efeene wha sey les s say ahe han he lae by he fme, s he essene f wha shall all epsemlgal behavsm, an ade mmn Dewey and Wgensen Ry 9 79 74) Ry nnes by elang hs appeal sey he pbl) hlsm Ths s f behavsm an bes be seen as a spees f hlsmb ne whh eqes n deals meaphysal ndepnnng lams ha f we ndesand he les f a langagegame, we ndesand all ha hee s ndesand ab why mves n he langagegame ae made 74) The ellale expessns n hs passage ae analy" and eps em ahy"bh ems f epsem appval We ae hee beng shwn he basshe gndf sh epsem appva des n le lmaely) n pvae selfeany b les, nsead, n he nsans f pbl pae s n hs way ha a se f speneps an be geneaed f a zeals aak n a pla ppse se f speneps n Winin aged ha he pbl hek agmen fals bease eles n an abaly seleve se f a geneal skepal agmen hs shall nw add ha he dfnc shwn pbly n hs egad gehe wh he le assgned blk ske psm ae lea ndans ha he nn f pbly has been elevaed he sas f a spenep B even f he ex des shw a sng nnPyhnan mmen wh espe pbly he nePynan ve s n mpleely sen even n he pmay f he pbl he fllwng passage s nea he end f Wgensens Rma on h Foundaion
o Mahmai:
215
Appendx B On he ohe hand i is no clea ha he geneal ageeen of people doing calclaions is a chaaceisic mak of all ha is called calclaing cold imagine ha pople who had leaned o calclae migh in paicla cicmsances say nde he infl ence of opim begin o calclae diffeenly fom one anohe and migh make se of hese calclaions and hey wee said no o be calclaing a all and o be deangedb ha hei calclaions wee acceped as a easonable pocede. B ms hey no a leas be ained o do he same calcla ions? Doesn thi belong essenially o he concep of calclaing? believe ha we cold imagine deviaions hee oo (p 1 8 7
Here Wttensten nvkes s antessentas t teer s wn nsstene tat te and f a anuae fr exae f te an uae f auatn ust e runded n trann n u rates n fat tat s te knd f reatures we are ut t s anae tat we ud ave een terwse My a ten s nt tat Wttensten n s ater wrtns sy traded n te suernet f rvay fr te suernet f uty n se aes e des see t d ust ts ut n ters fr exae n te assae ust ted e ates self dn ts and rrets sef Ts tnk s te earest exae f te strule etween nnyrrnan tees and neyrrnan tees n Wttensten's later wrtns
Action n Dewey laned tat Cartesan sers ut teseves ff fr te rse f de exerenta sene y sary searat n tut fr atn and ten vn te nd t tut Se assaes n te racaus see t ae Wttensten n ts Carte san tradtn 643 . If good and bad willing changes he wold, i can only change he limis of he wold, no he facs.
f wnweter d r adannt ane te fats f te wrd, ten we never do anytn te wrd eter Plause r nt ts s ne f te entra dtrnes f te racaus. Te reetn f ts standnt s ne f te rary dtrnes n Wtten stens ater sy Wat we t al te ray f atn r dn aears n setn f te Phlsophcal esgaos. Wttensten anes
216
yrrhonin Reflecion
someone handng a shopkeeper a slp sayng ve red apples and he shopkeeper aer gong hrough varous proedures (ounng mahng samples e) handng over ve red apples Wgensen hen has an nerlouor ask Bt how dos h know whr and how h is to look p th word rd' and what h is to do with th word iv II
Wgensen reples Wll assm that h c as hav dsribd Eplanation oms to an nd somwhr
Smlar passages our n On Certaint: 9. An mpirial proposition an b eed" w say Bt how and throgh what What coun as its tstBt is this an adqat tst And i so mst it not b rognizabl as sh in logi As i giv ing gronds did not om to an nd somtim Bt th nd is not an ngrondd prspposition it is an ngrondd way o ating
Then laer n On Certant 04 Giving gronds howvr stiying th vidn oms to an nd bt th nd is not rtain propositions' striking s imm diatly as tr i it is not a kind o eeing on or part it is or cing whih lis at th bottom [rund o th langaggam
Wha are we o make o hs ommmen o acting over seeng? hnk an be aken n wo ways reeng he wo ompeng ores n Wgensen's laer hough as desrpve n onen and phlosophally delaonary n nen or as normave n onen and phlosophally onsruve n nen Some passages sugges one readng some he oher many an be aken eher way We an look rs a passages ha exemply he purely desrp ve mo 148. Why do not satisy mysl that hav two t whn I want to gt p rom a hair? Thr is no why simply don't This is how I at
Wha s he ore o he lam There s no why" ake o be wholly negave. To see hs we an eamne Wgensens response o he arumen ha we are aer al perety used n no hekng wheher we have wo ee beore we ge up rom a har The supposed jusaon ould ake varous orms One mgh be empral We have ould be argued overwhelmngly srong obser
Appendix B
217
vatonal evdence for the exstence of our feet n the past we have observed them daly and we also have strong nductve understandng of the condtons under whch feet get detached from the body they do not for example fall off unnotced) The reason then that we do not check to see f we have two feet when we want to get up from a char s that we have unassalable emprcal evdence that we do have two feet. second justfcaton would be more pragmatc Checkng on whether one has feet when there s no call to do so would be a waste of our ntelectual resources. It doesnt pay to check on such thngs Though dfferent both the emprcal and the pragmatc justfcaton have ths n common They both hold that we beleve for example that we have feet on the bass of good reasons It s a central theme of the neoyrrhonan sde of Wttgensten's later phlosophy to reject such justfcatonalst commtments The followng passages bear on the emprcal style of justfcaton 472 h chaac of h blif in h nifomiy of na can phaps b sn mos claly n h cas in which w fa wha w pc. Nohing cold ndc m o p my hand no a flam alhogh af al i is only n he pa ha hav bn myslf 473 h blf ha fi wl b m s of h sam knd as h fa ha will bn m.
n ths prmtve case nether the fear nor the belef s the product of ratocna ton On the othe hand both the belef and the fear can be made objects of ratocnaton and then somethng can be sad n the behalf. hs can lead us to the natural but mstaken assumpton that the reasons we now gve n behalf of these belefs are ther grounds Wttgensten makes the pont ths way 4 79 h qson "On wha gonds do yo bliv hs? migh man "Fom wha a yo now ddcing i hav yo s ddcd i ? B mgh also man "Wha gonds can yo po dc fo his assmpion on hnking ov
f asked I coud probably produce a very strong emprcal argument n behalf of the exstence of my unobserved) feet or n behalf of the clam that fre wll burn me. s Wttgensten puts t 1/ hundred easons pesent themselves each drownng the voce of the othes" 478 hat howeve does not show that my belefs were sed on any such reasons erhaps some of these belefs are based on reasonng of ths knd. The supposton that they must e s for Wttgensten merely a ratonalst prejudce.
218
yhonian Reflecion
ung nex o prgm usfon n number of pes Wgensen emps o dsne hmsef from prgmsm. n one pssge n On Certanty he prs hs rsm of empr found onsm h n sde kng prgmsm GC 3 No prin is not th grond for or gam of jdging
Nor is its otstanding sss
n smr ven, he Plosopal nvestgatons onns he fo ong remrkbe pssge
467 Dos man think thn bas h has fond that thinking pays?Bas h thinks it advantagos to think? (Dos h bring his hildrn p bas h has fond it pays?
Wgensen hen gves he dsusson n unexpeed u by nong h sometmes [e do hnk beuse hs been found o py" (P 40). For exmpe, here re feer boer exposons hn formery, no h e no onger go by feeng n dedng he hkness of he s, bu mke suhndsuh uons nsed" (P 469) n prur onexs mkes good sense o sy h pys o hnk ue doubehek, e. ). he mske s o ke hese pru r onexs s represenve rher hn spe. he referenes o ng dong e.) so fr exmned seem o be n ne h he neoPyrrhonn sde of Wgensen's er phoso phy. he dffu queson sh o rse no s heher Wgen sen, somemes es, deprs from neoPyrrhonsm by reng ng dong) s ne knd of foundon, or s n eve foun don, o he ron foundons fvored by phosophers s he referene o on desrpve of ho nguge gmes re empoyed, or s he ppe o on n some y supposed o provde ground n he sense of vndon for hese nguge gmes? o he exen h Wgensen hs doped he seond ourse seems h he hs smpy reversed he pores of hnkng nd dong nd hus urned dong no superonep. Unforuney, here re pssges h sugges h Wgensen hs mde hs moveor suumbed o hs empon hve redy ed one suh pssge from On Cetanty for exmpe GC 04 t is not a kind of eeing on or part it is or acng whih
lis at th bottom [und] of th angaggam
Smr remrks our esehre n On Cetanty GC 34 hat is to say it blongs to th ogi of or sintifi
nvstigations that rtain things ar n deed n de not dtd
Aendix B
219
hs passage s ehoe a OC, 402 where Wgensen es Goehes as nd shib gos m Anfang wa di Ta
In he egnnng was he deedno ha s he word hs sg gess ha here posophers hae een ookng for mae proposons o gron e nae) eefs hey sho nsea hae e o ngrone ang hs sggess ha or angage games do ae a fonaon (a erok) ha seres hem agans skepa assa he fonaon howeer s no neea praa he aonpassages e so far a oe from On Cerainy here s I hnk nohng qe ke he n he hiloophical nve iaion B een f he hiloophical neiaion nke On Cerainy, s free of aan nsanes of ng ang an ong no speroneps here are s nsanes where Wgensens emphass on aon oer hogh eas hm o sor he meanng of ommon wors for phosopha prposes ng" ong" an so forh are frs perfey ornary wors ong ornary os. Se on n er ornay se hey o no san n he onras o hnkng ha Wgensen s aempng o expo If I nqre no someone's aons or ongs I w e o ao pees of hs nenional ehaor. I hasn' proe easy o ge an aeqae aon of acon, n he sanar ases a eas an aon s a kn of ehaor ge y hogh. hs acin oes no san n onras o eein (oprehenng hnkng) n he way ha Wgensens ssson emans aon ypay s an expresson of hogh One mark ha an ornary onep has een eeae o a speronep s ha he person sng ha onep s e o ake ams ha on he ommon nersanng are aany fase. hs ors for exampe n he onex n whh Wgensen s aempng o ea wh he skepa os he has rase onernng refoow ng. Uner he pressre of hs proem e proes he foowng phosopha hyperoe 1 9 . Whn r oby a rl r do no hoos r oby th l blndly
Here Wgensen sees o hae hahe a graos paraox for o say ha someone oes somehng ny n he ornary way of nersanng hs eaphor s o say ha he aon s performe who rerhyme or reason n Wgensen's onras eween foowng a re as a aer of choce an ong hs lindly s s ary pear oees when I foow a I a ey are o
22
Pyhonian Refleion
ah my sep seems hen ha even he Phoophc tto igensein shos some endenies o doing and aing ino philosophial spelaivesino speoneps In he opening say 1 7 seions of he Phoophc tto Wigensein exemplifies a pofondly ne ay of doing philosophy hogh a ssained iiqe of he ndelying viepoin of he cttu. I is impoan o see ha his iiqe of he cttu is no naoly aimed a is paila shoomings. The iiqe is inended o exemplify a mehod fo dealing ih any aemp a philosophial sifiaion is pa of a iiqe of philoso phizing The aim, hen is no o eplae he Taaian se of on eps ih anohe se ha ill do he ob bee This beomes lea in any nmbe of passages PI 8 Where does or invesigaion ge is imporance from since i seems only o desroy everyhing ineresing, ha is all ha is grea and imporan? Wha we are desroying is nohing b hoses of cards and we are clearing p he grond on which hey sand , 124. Philosophy may in no way inerfere wih he acal se o langage i can in he end only describe i For i canno give i any ondaion eiher leaves eveyhng as s PI 33 The clariy ha we are aiming a is indeed omlee clar iy B ha simply means ha he phlosophical problem shold omleely dsappear
In hese passages and many ohes, e hea he voie of he neo yhonian Wigensein On he ohe side if he exal analysis given above is oe hee is a seond voie in Wigenseins lae iings ha speaks in opposiion o he fis The siaion is no like ha fond in he cttu hee a flly oodinaed sysem of speoneps is pesened in an effo o solve a se of philosophial poblems. In he lae iings hee ae ha e migh all obeaks o epions of adiional ansendenal) philosophizing ha evade he iial eye ha shold have deeed hem. This is he Wigensein ho, in omplex and indie ays, aemped o pc he pakage of aomism, pivay, and hogh ih he pakage of hoism, pbli iy, and aion Wha e lea fom he neoyhonian Wigensein ove agains he nonyrhonian Wigensein, is ha he vale of a oin is no ineased by ing i ove
221
Aendx B
Notes It wold not hlp to sst that all tstn taks pa wthn th sys tm of al systms nss t s shown that th totaty of systms s tsf a systm n th vant sns It s fa fom obvos that ths s so 2 Sn Roty h qaly nssts that th whol mst b ndstood thoh ts pats t may sm nfa to tat hm as a smp host Bt hs fn to whol ts and anas shows that h s wln to spak abot and a fom ndtmnat whos Th ndtmnay of ths whos s not mtatd by fns to pats that a thmslvs ndt mnat Indntaly I fnd th poblm of th hmnt lf t s a pob m at aompltly nbatab Iman payn th follown am On at a tm yo a spposd to pa two hks (on d on bak) on th boad folown th r that yo may only pa a d hk to th ht of a bak hk and a blak hk to th lft of a d hk It wod b asy noh to s f a pata aanmnt satsfd ths on dtons bt th wold b no way of podn an aanmnt satsfyn thm sn th s no way of ttn th am statd tnam 98 4 . Fo th latonshp btwn my adn of th pvatlana a mnt and Kpks s Foln 987b 246 n. 0. . S Foln 987b hapt 2 6 Fo smla asons h attmpts to dstan hmslf fom bhavosm n psyhooy and fntsm n mathmats Fntsm and bhavosm a qt sma tnds Both say bt sy a w hav h s Both dny th stn of somthn both wth a vw of sapn fom a onfson (RM 8 7 Cspn Wht aso dtts two vos n Wttnstns lat phos ophy Fst th s th Wttnstn who maks pononmnts abot ph losophy tn s that n th nd phosopha pobms shod smpy dsappa Ths s th noyhonan Wttnstn Bt thn as Wht shwdly nots t s dfflt to on Wttnstn's pononmnts abot th knd of thn whh h thnks h oht to b don wth what h atally sms to do Not that hs atal tatmnt of th pat a sss sms fatly nonsstnt wth hs na mthodooa das Rath w an pt th woldb ntpt's dffty lk ths t s dobtf how anyon who ad only a bowdsd dton of th Invetgaton fom whh a fn to phosopha mthod an th nat and pa of phosophy had bn movd wod b abl to av at th onson that th atho vwd ths matts n jst th way n whh Wttnstn pofsss to do (Wht 980 262)
222
yhonan Reflecon
dn agree wih his I hink he ening ar he hloohal n gaon exeliies he hilshical ehd ha Wigensein r nnceens n hilshy descrie Wha is righ n Wrighs reading is ha here is als ch in Wigenseins laer wriings ha is a eas alien if n incaie wih his nePyrrhnian sandin A d n hink Wrigh and disagree n his in we sily adire diferen, seeingly ceing asecs Wigenseins hilshy.
References
Almdr Robrt 14 "Trth and Ednc hiloophical Quarterly 24358 1 "On Sng th Trth: A Rply. hiloophical Quarterly 2135 Annas Jula and Jonathan Barns 185. he Mode of Scepticim: Ancient ext and Mode Interpretation. Cambrdg: Cambrdg Unrsty rss. Armstrong D M 1 1 . erception and the hyical World. London: Rout ldg and Kgan aul Aud Robrt. 188. Belief Jutification and Knowledge Blmont Cali: Wadsorth Austn J L. 1. hiloophical aper 3d d. Oford: Oford Unrsty rss Barns onathan 1 82 "Th Bls of a yrrhonst. roceeding of the Cambrdge hilological Society ds E Knny and M M MacKn 22 Bayl rr 1 34 A general dictionary hitorical and critical: in which a new and accurate tranlation of that of the celebrated Mr Bayle with the correction and obervation printed in the late edition at ari i included and interpered with everal thouand live never before publihed: the whole containing the hitory of the mot illutriou peron of all age and nation particularly thoe of reat Britain and eland, ditinguihed by their rank action, leaing and other accomplihment: with reflection on uch paage of Mr Bayle a eem to avour cepticim and the Manichee ytem Lon don rntd by ams Bttnham Bsr Frdrck C. 18. he Fate of Reaon erman hiloophy from Kant to Fichte Cambrdg Mass.: Harvard Unrsty rss Blanshard Brand 1 3 . he Nature of hought. 2 ols N York: Macml lan BonJour aurnc. 1 "Th Cohrnc Thor o Emprcal Knoldg. hiloophical Studie 30:28112 185. he Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambrdg Mass.: Harard Unrsty rss 2l
224
Rrnc
Bosanet, Benad. 19 mplicion nd in nnc London Macian. Bge, Tye. 1979. "ndiidaism and te Menta Midw Sudi in hiloophy eds. Teodoe Ueing, Howad Wettstein and Pete Fenc. Minneapois Uniesity of Minnesota Pess 1 98 "Catesian Eo and te Ojectiity of Peception Subc Though nd Conx eds Piip Pettit and on MacDowe Ofod Caendon Pess Bnyeat, Mies 198 "Can te Sceptic Lie His Scepticism Doub nd Dogmim eds. M. Scofied, M F. Bnyeat, and Banes. Ofod: Caendon Pess , ed. 1983 Th Skpicl Tdiion Beeey: Uniesity of Caifonia Pess. 1984 "Te Sceptic in His Pace and Tie hiloophy in Hio eds. Ricad Roty, . B. Scneewind, and Qentin Sinne Ca idge: Caidge Uniesity Pess Cenia, Cistope. 198 Miniml Rionliy Camidge, Mass MT Pess. Cisom, Rodeic. 1957 civing hiloophicl Sudy. Itaca Co ne Uniesity Pess 1977 Thoy o nowldg d ed. Engewood Ciffs, N.. Pentice Ha. . 19 78 . "Coents and Repes. hiloophi 7, nos 34 5973. 198a Fi on Sudy in Rnc nd nnionliy Min neapos: Uniesity of Minnesota Pess. 198 Th Foundion o nowing Minneapois: Uniesity of Minnesota Pess 198 "Knowedge as stified Te Beief Empiricl Knowldg ed Pa K Mose, 4-51 Totowa, N Littefied 1989 Thoy o nowldg 3d ed. Engewood Ciffs, N. Pentice Ha Cae, Topson 197. "Te Legacy of Septicism ou o hiloo phy 9749. Ciffod, W. K. 1879. "Te Etics of Beief cu nd Ey. London: Macian. Dadson, Donad. 199 "e to te Facts. Joul o hiloophy :748-4 . 197374. "On te Vey Idea of a Concepta Sceme. ocding nd dd o h micn hiloophicl ociion 75. . 198 Ey on cion nd Evn New o: Ofod Uniesity Pess 1 98 "A Coeence Teoy of Tt and Knowedge Truh nd npion ed. Enest LePoe, 37-1 9 Ofod Bacwe. 1 99 1 . "Episteoogy Etenaed Dilcic 45, nos. -3 1 9 -. . 1 99. "Secte, ntesectie Oectie Manscipt.
Reerence
225
Dtk Fd 170 Eptmc Opato oual o Philoophy 67 no 24 10072 171a. Concuv Raon Auralaian oual o Philoophy 4122 171b Seeng and Knong Chcago Unvty o Chcago 1 8 1 Knoledge and he Flo o Inormaion Cambdg a T Duca C. 1 5 1 Naure Mind, and Deah. aSall .: Opn Cout Dummtt cha 15 Tuth Proceeding o he Arioelian Sociey 514162 Empcu Stu. 1 61 71 Sexu Empiricu. Tan R G Bu. ob Cla ca bay 4 vo ondon Wlam Hnmann Etchmndy ohn 10 The Concep o Logical Conequence. Cambdg a Havad Unvty Fdman chad. 1 74 n gd Dct n Gtt Countamp Auralaian oual o Philoophy 52 no 1 686 Fth Rodck 167 Th natomy o Ctanty Philoophical Revie 7627 1 78 Eptmc Concpt Rducb to Ethca Concpt Value and Moral Eay in Honor o William Frankena Charle Sevenon and Richard Brand d lvn Goldman and agwon Km 2 1 52. Dodcht Rd Fogln Robt 167 Evidence and Meaning ntnatonal ba o h loophy and Scntc thod ondon Routldg and Kgan aul 168 Wttgntn and ntutonm. American Philoophical Quarerly 5 no 4 26774 176 Wigenen 1t d ondon Routdg and Kgan aul 81 Wttgntn and Cacal Skptcm Ineaional Philo ophical Quarerly 21 no 1 15 1 8 . Th Tndncy o Hum Scptcm The Skepical Tradi ion d Bunyat 7412 Bky Unvty o Calona . 185 Hume Skepicim in he Treaie o Human Naure. ondon Routldg and Kgan aul 187a. Rvw The Mode o Skepicim by ula nna and onathan Ban Canadian Philoophical Revie 7 no 2 5052 187b. Wigenein. 2d d ondon Routldg and Kgan aul 11 Rvw The Way o Word, by aul Gc oual o Phi loophy 88 no 4 211. 12 Philoophical Inerpreaion Nw Yok Ood Unvty 1 Rvw Skepicim by Chtoph Hookway Philoophy and Phenomenological Reearch 5 no 1 2 1520. Fogln Robt and am H oo. 1 1 . h on ncompatbl Though Equaly Cohnt Sytm Philoophical Sudie 64222
226
Refeence
Fee Miael. . e eptis wo Kins o ssent an te Qestion o te Possiility o Knowlee. hoophy Hoy es Ria Roty B neewin an Qentin inne -7 Camie Camie niesity Pess. 7 e eptis Belies Eay n Ancen Phoophy 7-200 Minneapolis niesity o Minnesota Pess Gettie Emn 1. 6 Is stiie e Belie Knowlee Anay 26 no 6. Golman lin 67. Casal eoy o Knowin oua of Phoophy 6 no. 2 -72 76 Disimination an Peeptal Knowlee oua of Phoophy 7 no 20: 77 . 6 Epemoogy and Cognon Camie Mass. Haa ni esity Pess Gooan Nelson Poem ad Poec ianapolis BosMeill Gie H P 6 e Casal eoy o Peeption Poceedng of he Aoea Socey spp. ol 2 -2 . Sude n he Way of Wod Camie Mass . : Haa ni esity Pess Haman Gilet. 6 neene to te Best Eplanation hoophca Ree 6 70. Intion duco Accepace ad Raoa Beef e Masall wain Doet: Reiel. . 7 hough Pineton N. . Pineton niesity Pess. Hme Dai A aac of a eae of huma aue 740, a pamphe hheo ukon Camie e niesity Pess 7 Enque Conceng he Human Udeandng and Cocenng he Pcpe of Moa. e Oo Claenon Pess 7 A Teae of Human Naue 2 e Oo Oo nie sity Pess. Klein Pete D 7 Popose Deinition o Popositional Knowlee oua of Phoophy 6 no 6 7-2 . Ceany A Refuaon of Scepcm Minneapolis nie sity o Minnesota Pess Kipe al 0. Namg ad Necey Camie Mass Haa niesity ess. Ky Heny 6 . oay ad he Logc of Raona Beef Eanston n Notwesten niesity Pess. Lee Keit 6 Knowlee t an Eiene Aay 2 no 6-7 70 e Fot Conition o Knowlee Deense Ree of Meaphyc 222 7. Wy Not eptiism The Phoophca Foum 2 no. : 2 7 Koedge New Yo Oo niesity Pess.
Reeences
227
Theoy o Knowede Dimensions o Philosohy Seies Boul de Col Wesview Pess Lehe Keith and Thomas D Pason J 969 Knowledge: Undeeated Jus tiied Tue Belie Joua o hosophy 66 no 8: 37. Leoe est ed 986 Tuth and ntepetaton espectes on the hosophy o Donad Davdson Ood: Blackwell. Lewis C 946 An Anayss o Knowede and Vauaton LaSalle ll: Oen Cout Lewis David K 973 Counteactuas Cambidge Mass: Havad Unive sity Pess Lowy Catheine 978 Getties Notion o Justiication Mnd 87:08 Lueoy Steven ed 987 The ossbty o Knowede Totowa NJ.: Rowan and Litleield Matin Raymond 97 miically Conclusive Reasons hosophca tudes 86 983 Tacking Noicks Scetic A Bete Method Anayss 43:333 Mates Benson 98 keptca Essays Chicago: Univesiy o Chicago Pess Mooe G. 9. A Deence o Common Sense Contempoay Btsh hosophy d seies ed J H Muihead 933 London: Allen and Unwin 939 Poo o an enal Wold oceedns o the Btsh Acad emy 99 hosophca apes. London Allen and Unwin. Mose aul K 98 Empca Justcaton. Dodecht: Reidel Naess e 969 ceptcsm London: Routledge and Kegan aul Nielsen Kai 973 ceptcsm London Macmillan. Noick Robet 98 hosophca Epanatons Ood: Ood Unive sity Pess aas Geoge ed 979 Justcaton and Kowede Dodecht: Reidel Paas Geoge and Mashall Swain eds 978 Essays on Knowede and Justcaton thaca: Conell Univesity ess Polloc John 1. 974 Knowede and Justcaton Pinceton NJ: Pince ton Univesiy Pess 986. Contempoay Theoes o Knowede Totowa NJ: Rowan and Littleield Pokin Richad Heny 960. The Hstoy o ceptcsm om Easmus to Descates Assen an Gocum 979 The Hsto o ceptcsm om Easmus to pnoza Bekeley: Univesity o Calioia ess 980 The Hh Road to yhonsm San iego: Austin Hill ess ice H H 93 ecepton New Yok: Robet M McBide utnam Hila 98 Reason Tuth and Hstory Cambidge: Cambidge Univesity Pess
990.
228
efeenes
Quine, Willard an ran. 90. o n O e. abridge Mass. M Press. . 98. Mehos of o 4h ed abidge, Mass. arard Unier siy Press Rescher Nicholas. 97 The Coheene Theoy of Tuh ford laren don Press Rory Richard. 979. hlosophy n he Mo of Nue Princeon NJ Princeon Uniersiy Press. Sedley Daid. 98. he Moiaion of reek Skepicis The Skep Ton, ed. Miles urnyea, 99. erkeley Uniersiy of alifor nia Press. Sellars Wilfrid 96. Sene eepon, n ely New York uan iies Press. . 968. Sene n Mephyss. London Rouledge and Kegan Paul. . 975a. he Aderbial heoy of becs of Sensaion Meph losophy 64460. . 975b. piseic Principles. Aon Knolee, n ely Cl Sues n ono of f Sells ed. ecorNe as aneda, 47 ndianapolis obbsMerrill. Sha Daid. 987 Noicks oncepion of Skepicis. The ossly of Knolee, ed. Seen LuperFoy, 4-66. oowa N. Rowan and Lilefield. Shope Rober K. 98. The Anlyss of Knon Princeon N.. Princeon Uniersiy Press. Skyrs, rian 967. he xplicaion of 'X Knows ha p' oul of h losophy 64789. Sosa rnes. 979. piseic Presupposiions Jusfon n Kno ee ed eorge S Pappas 799. Dordrech Reidel. . 980. he Raf and he Pyraid. Mes Sues n hosophy 55 Salnaker Rober. 984. nquy abridge Mass M Press Sich Sephen P. 985. ould Man e an rraional Ania! Synhese 645-5. Sich, Sephen P. and Richard . Nisbe. 980. usificaion and he Psy chology of uan Reasoning. hlosophy of Sene 47 no. 880. Sough, harloe L 969. eek Skepsm A Suy n psemoloy. erkeey Uniersiy of aliforna Press. Srawson P. F. 985. Skepsm n Nulsm Some ees. New York olubia Uniersiy Press Soud arry. 968. ranscendenal Arguens Jou of hosophy 65 no 9 4 56 . 9 77 ume London Rouledge and Kegan Paul. 984. The Snne of hlosophl Sepsm xford ford Uniersiy Press.
i
Reeenes
22
Swain Marshall. 974. Episemi Defeasibiliy Amen hlosohl Quely no. Tarski Alfred 944 The Semani onepion of Trh hlosohy nd henomenolol Reseh 4475. Unger Peer 97 A Defense of Skepiism hlosohl Reew 809828 975 none A Cse o Sesm ford larendon Press Whie Moron. 98 Wh s nd Wh Ouh o Be Done ford ford Universiy Press Wigensein Ldwig 958 hlosohl nesons d ed Trans G E M Ansombe ford Blakwell. . 96 Tus Loohlosohus Trans D. F Pears and B F. MGuinness London Roledge and Kegan Paul. 967a Zee Trans. G. E. M Ansombe ford Blakwell. 967b Rems on he Foundons o Mhems 2d ed. Trans. G E M. Ansombe. ford Blakwell . 969a he Blue nd Bon Boos 2d ed ford Blakwell. . 969b. On Ceny Trans G E M Ansombe ford Blakwel Wrigh, rispin. 980 Wensen on he Foundons o Mhems ambridge Mass. Harvard Universy Press
Ths page ntentonally lef blank
Index
Accssibility o ons blis See Dostic smtion Action 2520 Advbil thois 45n9 Agglomtion incil o 03 068 Agi oblm 6 37 2 22nn5-6 Almd obt 28n3 A ioi knowldg 68 n7 Anc sttmnts 3-32 Amstong D M. 58n Assnt 77-78 82 Ati 4 Atomism 206-8 Adi obt 86n22 Bk Sthn F 85n3 Bns Jonthn 5-7 8-9 Bi 39n2 75 76 ccssibility o 48 5254 nd ctint 29-32 nd cognitiv conlicts 44 59n cognitivly sontnos 5557 6 istson gmnt 77 8-82 omtion o 7980 9 n 5 nd ction 52 24 ssnsion o 35 7-8 thidson gmnt 7 78 nd tcking th tth 772 882 Bkly Gog 5 Binc 95 98 Blnshd Bnd 47 67n4 Bono Lnc 26 59n2 59n
on th Agi oblm 67 cohntism o 7 4 762 67n4 nd cognitivly sontnos bli 55-57 6 nd consistncy 4950 5 nd cosondnc tho o tth 4748 60 6 62-63 nd disqottionl thoy o tth 60 6367 nd dostic smtion 48 49 5254 5 6 68n6 nd holism 4950 nd ininit gss 48 int obction 55 nd mtstiiction 48 49 5962 mltilchoic oblm 5455 5859 nd obsvtion 5558 68n3 nd odin knowldg 505 nd obbility gmnt 606 oblm o tth 5 5 nd lism 5960 nd stndds o cohnc 4849 on istmic sonsibility 4546 5 on itionlity 4345 on libilism 30n 6 4246 Bosnqt Bnd 67n Bins in ts 7 75-79 8788 Btmn Mich 30n 7
31
232 Brg Tylr 8-88 9n2 Brnyat Mls Carnas Cartsan skptcs 8 24n8 an th Agrppa probl 2 Cartsan coplx 26- 2 2 2 th on -8 6 ontologcal ntrnals of 2 86-8 s Pyrrhons 929 an racal cpton 888 22 Casal santcs 8 882 884 8 Casal thors 494 8n 9n2 an casal rlatons 6 9n 9n9 an nfrnta knowg 24 an nonnfrntal knowlg 2 rlaton of blf to blng 9nn an sbnct constrants 68 Crtanty 282 Charty prncpl of 8-9 8 8 9 n 4 9n2 Chrnak Chrstophr 4n2 68n8 9n2 Chshol Rorck 6 64 22n6 244 on crtanty 28-2 on concrrnt propostons 8 4 on obt 26 on th nt 2628 8 44nn4 xtrnals of 28 44n6 on knowlg clas 94 on langag on lls of stfcaton 229 44n on atral pstc prncpls 8 4 42 on ory on th ngat cohrnc crt ron 6 4
ndex on noncoparat prcaton -2 4 on th obos 44n on prcpton 2 8 4n9 an prsptons 2 on probablty 6 4 on th slfstfyng 4 on slfprsntng proprts 29-2 46 Crclarty - 46 2 Claroyanc 44 Clark Thopson 24n8 Clffor W K. 4- 6 Closr prncpl of 28n2 6 8 82-84 86n22 falr of 8-8 an ll of scrtny 98 8 8n22 6 an th lottry paraox Cohrnt s 8 2 46 6n4 68n xtrnal -9 an blf 2 82 9nn6 an casa santcs 8 882 8-84 8 an consstncy 2- 9n an corrsponnc thory of tth 9n6 9 n 4 an sqotatonal thory of trth 8 an rror 84-8 86-8 frstprson argnt 8 82 an anng 6 an th prncpl of charty 89 8 8 9 n 4 pblcangag argnt 828 an Pyrrhons 8 8-9 thrprson argnt 8 , 9n6 an fonatonals an ncopatbl blf systs 4 ntrna 46-6 an ogntly spontanos b� - 6
nde ad cosiscy 49-50 5 ad cospodc hoy of h 448 60 6 62-6 ad disquoaioal hoy of h 60 6-6 ad doasic psupio 48 49 5254 56 686 ad holis 4950 ad ajusificaio 48 49 59-62 ad uliplchoic pol 5455 5 859 ad osvaio 5558 68 ad odiay kowldg 50-5 ad poailiy agu 606 ad sadads of cohc 4849 posiiv/gaiv 4 54 0 Coo ss 50-5 Coclusiv asos 6 0 85 85 coad of 6 ad h cojucio picipl 06 ad alis 0 ad Gi pols 664 ad poailiy 08 ad sujuciv codiioals 62 64-65 668 690 Cocu poposiios 8 40 Codiioals 58 2-5 85 Cojucio picipl 0 068 Coualis 9698 holisic 208- plualisic 208 Coayofac codiioals See Coufacuals Covsaioal iplicau 9 899 Cospodc hoy of See Tuh Coufacual siuais 56-58 Coufacuals 58 2- See Sujuciv codiioals
233 avidso oald -90 o lif 2 5 -82 906 2 0 o causal saics 8 80-82 8-84 85 o cosiscy 2- 90 o cospodc hoy of h 906 9 4 o disquoaioal hoy o f uh 6 85 o o 84-85 868 fispso agu 8 82 o aig 6 o h picipl of chaiy 89 8 85 9 4 puliclaguag agu 828 hidpso agu -8 9 6 duciv closu See Closu picipl of duciv asoig 2 22 298 89 See s fial kowldg fasiiliy See dfasiiliy hois lla Rocca Michal 86 9 scas R See Casia skpicis wy Joh 88 2 4 2 5 isquoaioal ho of uh 60 6-6 4 85 86 ogais 8 ou 90-9 200 See s Ca sia skpicis; No yhois; yhois; Skpicis cos of liiaig 00 aiglssss of asoal 26 oasic psupio 48 49 5254 56 686 sk Fd 29 55 o coclusiv asos 6 66 668 85 85 o h picipl of closu 8284 u Michal 9 Episic closu See Closu picipl of
234 Episteic luc 25 2 86n2 Episteic espnsibility 2628 See also cutiny levels and claivyance 56 and cgnitive cnlicts and the cnunctin pinciple 06 08 ustiicatin as - 8 20-2 5 and the lttey paadx 06 native cnceptin -5 and peceptual udgent 8 and the peace paadx 05-6 and Pyhnis 5-6 aising standads Epche 6 E See allibility Etcheendy hn 8 6 Evidence See unds Extenal cheentis See under Cheentis Extenal wld pble 2 2- 62-66 86-8 See also Realis Extenalis -58 causal theies 2 9-5 58n and cnclusive easns 0 and gunds 68 and ineential nwledge 525 and intellectualist peudice -8 vs intenalis 2 920 and nnineential nwledge 5 55 eliabilis -6 subunctive theies 2 56 58 Extenalist seantics See Causal seantics allacy natualistic 9 allibility 88-89 8-85 868 and the peace paadx 058 and scutiny 06 eldan Richad 29n istpesn aguent 8 -82 ive Mdes Leading t the Suspen sin Belie See Agippa pble undatinalis 8 2 22-2 See also hishl Rdeic and cheentis 55
nde and cpaative pedicatins 5n cncepts 205-6 and eaning 6 9n nndxastic n2 and peceptin 2 8 5n9 and pbability 6 uthclause theies 9 indeeasibility theies -9 0n6 0nn8-9 6 69n8 and sidecnstaints -2 ede Michael -8 2n8 ettie cunteexaples 5-28 See also uthclause the ies ban acsiiles exaple 2526 56 catalg 29n Cleve Reasne exaple 225 and cnclusive easns 66 and episteic luc 25 and episteic espnsibility 8 20-2 ulatin 5-6 abit exaple -5 -8 geat hned wl exaple 98 gullible gandthe exaple 2 ushe hse ace exaple 690 and inatinal isatch 22-2 and ustiied alse belies 5-6 Ngt exaple 2 29n 5 and nnntnicity 2-22 painted ules exaple 82-8 99 vlcan exaple 55 and the weaening ineence 2-2 ethe hann Wlgang vn 2 9 ldan Alvin 85n9 n causal elatins 55-56 causal they 9-5 59n8 n cunteactual situatins 5658 n ineential vs nnineential nwledge 525 n ey 5 52
nd prptal knowldg 54-55 5 7-58 Gra pistmi 8800 and onttalism 96-98 and dobt 90-92 93 00n3 n and allibility 8889 and jstiiatory prodrs 89-90 and knowldg laims 94-95 98 and srtiny 9395 Gri al 59n 2 98-99 Gronds. S aso Conlsiv ra sons assssmnt o 82 29nn6-7 and trnalism 46-48 obsrvational vidn as 2 6 7 Hrmnti irl 20 22n2 Holism 4950 54 6 8 n 2 4 22n2 and rror 8485 holisti onttalism 208 Hm David 8 82 8 8 4 ndasibility thoris 33-39 40n6 40nn89 64 69n8 ndisriminability 77 ndtiv rasoning vs. ddtiv 2-22 and pistmi rsponsibility 8 as nonmonotoni 22 skptiism abot 8 82 nrntial knowldg 52-54 59n3 S aso Ddtiv rasoning ninit rgrss 4 46 48 S aso Agrippa problm npt objtion 5 5 ntrnal ohrntism. S undr Cohrntism ntrnalism 28 S aso Cohrn tism intrnal vs. trnalism 32 9-20 ontologial 70 8688 ationality 43-45 solation problm 73
235 stiiation 7-22 S aso s thos and argmntation 47 as assssmnt o gronds 82 29nn67 46 59n5 and ognitiv ability 34-35 and onttalism 96-98 and dobt 90-92 93 00n3 n intrnalism/trnalism 920 stiiatory ramwork 95-99 lvls o 2529 44n7 and maning 76 and mtastiiation 48 49 59-62 normativ prinipl o 46 and obsrvational vidn 2 6 7 S aso rp tion pragmati 2 8 prodrs o 89-90 and srtiny 9395 sss onditions on thoris o 7 9 and trth 6- 7 28n3 stiiationalism 77 7 442 92 stiid tr bli 5-6 20 S aso Gttir ontram pls Kant mmanl 88 Klin tr 75 Knowldg laims 94-95 3 940 67 9 7-98 and bivaln 95 98 ommon sns 505 Kornblith Hilary 9n2 Kripk Sal on possibl worlds 78 85n2 privatlangag argmnt 2 2 22n4 Kybrg Hn 09n Langag 0 3 2 5 langag gams 9 92 93 20 privatlangag argmnt 8283 224 22n4 pbli hk argmnt 23 5
236 Lhrr Kith Cvr Rasonr xamp 24 on th isqotationa thoy of trth 1 646 3 on infasibiity 34-3 64 16n1 8 isoation probm 1 66 on jstification gams 64-6 LPor Ernst 11n22 Lwis C. Lwis avi 4 Lotty paraox 2- Lowy Cathrin 2n Martin Raymon 6 8n1 1 Matria pistmic princips 338 1 4 1 1 42 Mathmatica knowg 6n1 McCa Storrs 8 Maning 2-21 24n4 an bifs 1 6 casa accont o 8 8 -82 an convrsationa impicatr 18- an fonationaism 6 1n13 an jstification 1 6 an objctiv trth conitions an th spakrs assnt 1 -8 Minong Axis von 133 Mmoy 12 13 Mtajstiication 48 14 -62 Michas Fr -8 Monotonicity 2 -23 2n Moor G. E 6 Mos Pa K 14- 144n6 4n3 Mtipchoic probm 1 4- 8 Natraistic faacy 3 Ncsay trth 6n1 Ngativ cohrnc critrion 1363 1 4 NoPyrrhonism 24-2 See aso Pyrrhonism vs. Cartsian skpicism 2-3 an angag s vs nonPyrrhonism 2 2
ndex an prcpta knowg 32 133 an privig concpts 26 Nitsch Fririch 88 Nisbtt Richar E 14n2 168n8 Noninfrntia knowg 1 n3 See also Prcption Nonmonotonicity 22 2n Noick Robrt 8n6 on possib wors 3 8 86n6 on princip of cosr 8 on skpticism -82 on tracking th trth 2 Obsrvation 8 1 168n13 obsrvationa vinc 2 1 6-1 Orinary knowg 1- 1 Pappas Gorg S 34 Paraigmcas argmnts -2 Paraoxs Lotty paraox 1 2- Prfac paraox 8 Smntic paraoxs 1 63-64 Paxson Thomas . r 343 Prcption 4- 8 6 an fonatinaism 132 133 3 138 14n as infrntia n13 an jgmnt 4-48 Pyrrhonist rjction o 32 133 Pritrop 4 Prspctivism 68 Phiosophica riv 88 Poock ohn L 122n4 Possib wors 68 - 86n1 6 an comptnss proofs 8n2 xamination of 4 an fair of princip of cosr 88 an sbjnctiv conitionas 2- Pragmatism 2 8 Pricaton noncomparativ 3-32 4 Prfac paraox 8
Inde Pesumpton, 13233 oastc, 1 48, 149, 1 5254, 1 56, 168n6 Pce, H H, 133 Pma face gouns, 133, 136, 1 423 Pvatelanguage agument, 2 1 214, 221n4 Pobablty, 102, 1 08, 1 6061 an founatonalsm, 136, 1 43 an scutny, 1 045 Popecepton, 456 Publc check agument, 21315 Publcty of language, 1 83, 2 1 1-15 Publclanguage agument, 1 8283 Putnam, Hlay 2 1 0 Pyhonsm, 8 8 , 1 92203 ee aso gppa poblem Neo Pyhonsm Skeptcsm vs caemc skeptcsm, 66 efnton of, 3 an ogmatsm, 7 an epstemc pactce, 1 9596, 199 an epstemc esponsblty, 1 15-16 an peceptual knolege, 132, 133 ustc vs ubane, 59 an selfefutaton, 4 statablty of skeptcsm, 1 96202 an suspenson of belef, 35, 78, 1 2n8 an suspenson of jugment, 78 an tuth ctea, 6-7 Qune, Wlla an Oman, 73, 1 59, 1 9 1 n 1 3, 2 1 0 Realsm, 1 5960, 1 7 1 , 2 1 2 ee so Etenal ol, poblem of Regess, nfnte, 1 14, 1 46, 148. ee aso gppa poblem Relablsm, 30n1 6, 426 Remembeng, 5 1 -52, 1 3 7 Responsblty, epstemc ee Eps temc esponsblty Roty, Rcha, 1 74 2 1 0, 214, 221 n2 Ros W D 1 43 Russellan ceaton, 5 758
237 Scutny, levels of, 37, 9395, 19899 an closue, 79-8 1, 83, 87n22, 1067 an epstemc luck, 86n2 1 an fallblty, 1 067 an pobablty, 1 045 asng of, 58, 83, 98100 Sely, Dav, 1 2n2 Selfpesentng popetes, 1 292, 13436, 1 4 1 Sellas, Wlf, 1 56 , 168n12 Semantc paaoes, 1 6364 Sensaton, 1 75 Sense ata, 1 24, 1 29, 135 Setus Empcus, 35, 8, 12n3, 6566 on the gppa poblem, 1 13, 122n5 Shatz, Dav, 8 1 Shope, Robet K 29n Seconstants, 3 1-32 Sncety assumpton, 1 7778 Snnottmstong, Walte, 109n2, 191n24 Skeptcsm, 7582 ee aso gppa poblem Catesan skept csm Pyhonsm an conclusve easons, 65-66 about nuctve easonng, 8 182 meannglessness of, 16 1 , 1 74 acal, 191n24 statablty of, 1 96202 Skyms, Ban, 30n1 4 Solpssm, 2 1 2 Sosa, Enest, 25 Stalnake, Robet, 74, 105 Stch, Stephen P., 145n12, 168n8 Stou, Bay, 100n Subjunctve contonals, 7275, 85n13 Subjunctve theoes, 42, 5658 Subjunctvsm, 66-70, 85n 1 an specfcty of easons, 68-69 Subjunctvts ee Possble ols Supeconcepts, 10, 206-10, 2 13, 2 1 4, 218-20 San, Mashall, 3337, 40n6, 40nn8-9
