Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:36:17.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2018

Edited by
Stephen Hetherington
Stephen Hetherington
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Gettier Problem , pp. 235 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, E. W. (1988). “Modus tollens revisited,” Analysis 48: 122–8.Google Scholar
Adams, F. and Clarke, M. (2005). “Resurrecting the tracking theories,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: 207–21.Google Scholar
Adler, J. E. (2002). Belief’s Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Almeder, R. (1974). “Truth and Evidence,” The Philosophical Quarterly 24: 365–8.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2016). “Disjunction,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/disjunction/Google Scholar
Alston, W. (2005). “Internalism and externalism in epistemology,” in Craig, E. (ed.), The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 454–5.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M. (2010). Kinds of Reasons: An Essay in the Philosophy of Action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (unpublished manuscript). Cartesian Infallibilism and Knowledge First Epistemology.Google Scholar
Antognazza, M. R. (2015). “The benefit to philosophy of the study of its history,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23: 161–84.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (2004). Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1956). The Problem of Knowledge. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baumann, P. (2012). “Nozick’s defense of closure,” in Becker, K. and Black, T. (eds.), The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. (1998). “Intuition and the autonomy of philosophy,” in DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds.), The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 201–40.Google Scholar
Beall, J. C. and Restall, G. (2006). Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaney, M. (2013). “What is analytic philosophy?” in Beaney, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
Beaney, M. (2016). “Analysis,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/analysis/Google Scholar
Becker, K. (2006). “Is counterfactual reliabilism compatible with higher-level knowledge?” Dialectica 60: 79–84.Google Scholar
Becker, K. (2007). Epistemology Modalized. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Becker, K. (2012). “Methods and how to individuate them,” in Becker, K. and Black, T. (eds.), The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–97.Google Scholar
Becker, K. (2016). “Deductive closure principle,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/deductive-closure-principle/v-2Google Scholar
Becker, K. and Black, T. (eds.) (2012). The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beebe, J. R. and Buckwalter, W. (2010). “The epistemic side-effect effect,” Mind & Language 25: 1–25.Google Scholar
Beebe, J. R. and Jensen, M. (2012). “Surprising connections between knowledge and action: The robustness of the epistemic side-effect effect,” Philosophical Psychology, 25(5): 689–715. http://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.622439Google Scholar
Bengson, J. (2013). “Experimental attacks on intuitions and answers,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86: 495–532.Google Scholar
Bengson, J. (2014). “How philosophers use intuition and ‘intuition,’” Philosophical Studies 171: 555–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2004). “Is evidence non-inferential?” The Philosophical Quarterly 54: 252–65.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2007). “Justified judging,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 81–110.Google Scholar
Blouw, P., Buckwalter, W., and Turri, J. (2018). “Gettier cases: A taxonomy,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 242–52.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. (1987). “Nozick, externalism, and skepticism,” in Luper-Foy, S. (ed.), The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 297–313.Google Scholar
Borges, R. (2015). “On synchronic dogmatism,” Synthese 192: 3677–93.Google Scholar
Borges, R. (2017). “Inferential knowledge and the Gettier conjecture,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. D. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 273–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broncano-Berrocal, F. (2016). “Luck,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/luck/Google Scholar
Broncano-Berrocal, F. and Carter, J. A. (2017). “Epistemic luck,” in Crane, T. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemic-luck/v-1Google Scholar
Brown, J. (2013). “Infallibilism, evidence, and pragmatics,” Analysis 73: 626–35.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, W. (2014). “Gettier made ESEE,” Philosophical Psychology 27: 363–83.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, W. and Stich, S. (2011). “Gender and the philosophy club,” The Philosophers’ Magazine 52: 60–5.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2005). “Disjunctivism and perceptual psychology,” Philosophical Topics 33: 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. P. (2005). “No requirement of relevance,” in Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford University Press, pp. 727–50.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. P. (2009). Philosophical Logic. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without Intuitions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2014). “Replies to Weatherson, Chalmers, Weinberg, and Bengson,” Philosophical Studies 171: 577–600.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cassam, Q. (2009). “Can the concept of knowledge be analysed?” in Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 12–30.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. (2003). A Priori Justification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. and Jackson, F. (2001). “Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation,” The Philosophical Review 110: 315–60.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1957). Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1966). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1977). Theory of Knowledge, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1989). Theory of Knowledge, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2013). Intuition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2018). “The epistemic significance of perceptual learning,” Inquiry 61, no. 5–6 (2018): 520–542.Google Scholar
Church, I. M. (2013). “Manifest failure failure: The Gettier problem revived,” Philosophia 41: 171–7.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1988). “How to be a fallibilist,” Philosophical Perspectives 2: 91–123.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1998). “Contextualist solutions to epistemological problems: Skepticism, Gettier, and the lottery,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 289–306.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1999). “Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons,” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. and Comesaña, J. (2013). “Williamson on Gettier Cases and Epistemic Logic,” Inquiry 56(1): 15–29.Google Scholar
Colaćo, D., Buckwalter, W., Stich, S., and Machery, E. (2014). “Epistemic intuitions in fake-barn thought experiments,” Episteme 11: 199–212.Google Scholar
Comesaña, J. (2005a). “Justified versus warranted perceptual belief: A case against disjunctivism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 367–83.Google Scholar
Comesaña, J. (2005b). “We are (almost) all externalists now,” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comesaña, J. and Kantin, H. (2010). “Is evidence knowledge?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80: 447–54.Google Scholar
Conee, E. (1988). “Why solve the Gettier problem?” in Austin, D. (ed.) Philosophical Analysis: A Defense by Example. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 55–8.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2004). “Internalism defended,” in Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford University Press, pp. 53–82.Google Scholar
Craig, E. J. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cross, T. (2010). “Skeptical success,” in Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, pp. 35–62.Google Scholar
Cullen, S. (2010). “Survey-driven romanticism,” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 275–96.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (1985). Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
David, M. and Warfield, T. A. (2008). “Knowledge-closure and skepticism,” in Smith, Q. (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 137–87.Google Scholar
De Almeida, C. (2017). “Knowledge, benign falsehoods, and the Gettier Problem,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 292–311.Google Scholar
De Almeida, C. (forthcoming a). “Klein, skepticism, epistemic closure, and evidential underdetermination,” in Fitelson, B., Borges, R., and Braden, C. (eds.), Knowledge, Scepticism, and Defeat: Themes from Klein. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
De Almeida, C. (forthcoming b). “On our epistemological debt to Moore and Russell,” in Hetherington, S. and Valaris, M. (eds.), Knowledge in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1992). “Contextualism and knowledge attributions,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 913–29.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1995). “Solving the skeptical problem,” The Philosophical Review 104: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. (1996). “Knowledge, assertion and lotteries,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 568–80.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1999). “Contextualism: An explanation and defense,” in Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Malden: Blackwell, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1991). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 3: Correspondence, trans. John G. Cottingham, Robert Stoothof, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies, (ed.) Moriarty, M.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (2010). “Intuitions, counter-examples, and experimental philosophy,” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 447–60.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (2015). The Myth of the Intuitive: Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Method. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (2016). “Replies to commentators,” Inquiry 60: 420–42.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2011). “Fallibilism,” in Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. New York: Routledge, pp. 131–43.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1970). “Epistemic operators,” The Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–23.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1971). “Conclusive reasons,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 49: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (2005). “The case against closure,” in Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (2014). “The case against closure,” in Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn., Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar
Dutant, J. (2015). “The legend of the justified true belief analysis,” Philosophical Perspectives 29: 95–145.Google Scholar
Earl, D. (n.d.). “The classical theory of concepts,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/conc-cl/Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Firth, R. (1978). “Are epistemic concepts reducible to ethical concepts?” in Goldman, A. I. and Kim, J. (eds.), Values and Morals: Essays in Honor of William Frankena, Charles Stevenson, and Richard Brandt. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 215–29.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. (2009). “Is knowing a state of mind? The case against,” in Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O. and Turri, J. (2015). “Is probabilistic evidence a source of knowledge?” Cognitive Science 39: 1062–80.Google Scholar
Gettier, E. L. (1963). “Is justified true belief knowledge?” Analysis 23: 121–3.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2006). “Reasons for belief,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72: 286–318.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2007). Anti-Individualism: Mind and Language, Knowledge and Justification. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2010). Relying on Others: An Essay in Epistemology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2011). “The division of epistemic labour,” Episteme 8: 112–25.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1967). “A causal theory of knowing,” The Journal of Philosophy 64: 357–72.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1976). “Discrimination and perceptual knowledge,” The Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–91.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1979). “What is justified belief?” in Pappas, G. S. (ed.), Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1993). Philosophical Applications of Cognitive Science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1999). “A priori warrant and naturalistic epistemology,” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 1–28.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2005). “Kornblith’s naturalistic epistemology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71: 403–10.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2007). “Philosophical intuitions: Their target, their source, and their epistemic status,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 74: 1–26.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2009). “Williamson on knowledge and evidence,” in Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2011). Toward a synthesis of reliabilism and evidentialism? Or: Evidentialism’s problems, reliabilism’s rescue package,” in Dougherty, T. (ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents. Oxford University Press, pp. 254–80.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2015). “Review of Hilary Kornblith, A Naturalistic Epistemology: Selected Papers,” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/a-naturalistic-epistemology-selected-papers/Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. and Pust, J. (1998). “Philosophical theory and intuitional evidence,” in DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds.), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 179–97.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (1994). “Review of Kvanvig (1992),” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 973–6.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (1999). “Agent reliabilism,” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 273–96.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2003). “Knowledge as credit for true belief,” in DePaul, M. and Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 111–34.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2004). “A different sort of contextualism,” Erkenntnis 61: 383–400.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2007). “The nature of ability and the purpose of knowledge,” Philosophical Issues 17: 57–69.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2009). “Knowledge and success from ability,” Philosophical Studies 142: 17–26.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2012). “A (different) virtue epistemology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 1–26.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2013). “Knowledge, testimony, and action,” in Henning, T. and Schweikard, D. P. (eds.), Knowledge, Virtue, and Action: Essays on Putting Epistemic Virtues to Work. New York: Routledge, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2015). “Post-Gettier epistemology,” Veritas 60: 421–37.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (forthcoming a). “The role of trust in testimonial knowledge,” in Dormandy, K. (ed.), Trust in Epistemology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (forthcoming b). The Transmission of Knowledge.Google Scholar
Green, A. (2012). “Extending the credit theory of knowledge,” Philosophical Explorations 15: 121–32.Google Scholar
Green, A. (2014). “Deficient testimony is deficient teamwork,” Episteme 11: 213–27.Google Scholar
Green, A. (2017). The Social Contexts of Intellectual Virtue: Knowledge as a Team Achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.). (2009). Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gundersen, L. (2012). “Knowledge, cognitive dispositions and conditionals,” in Becker, K. and Black, T. (eds.), The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–80.Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. (2013). The Intellectual Powers: A Study of Human Nature. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hahn, H. (1980). “The crisis in intuition,” in his Empiricism, Logic, and Mathematics: Philosophical Papers, (ed.) McGuiness, B.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 73–102.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2014). “The case for closure,” in Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 40–56.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (1999). “The proper role for contextualism in an anti-luck epistemology,” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 115–29.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. and Greco, J. (eds.) (2015). Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1992). Epistemology’s Paradox: Is a Theory of Knowledge Possible? Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1998). “Actually knowing,” The Philosophical Quarterly 48: 453–69.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1999). “Knowing failably,” The Journal of Philosophy 96: 565–87.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2001). Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge: On Two Dogmas of Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2005a). “Fallibilism,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallibil.htmGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2005b). “Gettier problems,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2006). “Knowledge that works: A tale of two conceptual models,” in Hetherington, S. (ed.) Aspects of Knowing: Epistemological Essays. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 219–40.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2010). “Elusive epistemological justification,” Synthese 174: 315–30.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011a). How To Know: A Practicalist Conception of Knowing. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011b). “The Gettier Problem,” in Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. New York: Routledge, pp. 119–30.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2012). “The significance of fallibilism within Gettier’s challenge: A case study,” Philosophia 40: 539–47.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2013). “Knowledge can be lucky,” in Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 164–76.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016a). Knowledge and the Gettier Problem. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016b). “Gettier Problem,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/gettier-problems/v-2.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016c). “Understanding fallible warrant and fallible knowledge: Three proposals,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97: 270–82.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2017). “Gettier cases: Transworld identity and counterparts,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 366–83.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2018). “Skepticism and fallibilism,” in Machuca, D. and Reed, B. (eds.), Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 609–19.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (forthcoming). “The redundancy problem: From knowledge-infallibilism to knowledge-minimalism,” Synthese.Google Scholar
Hill, T. E. (1961). Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. New York: The Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R. (2017). “Sed ubi Socrates currit? On the Gettier Problem before Gettier,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. D. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 135–51.Google Scholar
Hoffman, W. E. (1975). “Almeder on truth and evidence,” The Philosophical Quarterly 25: 59–61.Google Scholar
Hofman, F. (2014). “Gettier for justification,” Episteme 11: 305–18.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. and Wiegmann, A. (2016). “Intuitive expertise and intuitions about knowledge,” Philosophical Studies 173: 2701–26.Google Scholar
Howard-Snyder, D., Howard-Snyder, F., and Feit, N. (2003). “Infallibilism and Gettier’s legacy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 304–27.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. (2014). “Is knowledge the ability to ϕ for the reason that p?” Episteme 11: 457–62.Google Scholar
Hyman, J. (1999). “How knowledge works,” The Philosophical Quarterly.49: 433–51.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. and Jarvis, B. W. (2013). The Rules of Thought. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. and Jenkins, C. S. I. (forthcoming). “On putting knowledge ‘first,’” in Carter, J. A., Gordon, E. C., and Jarvis, B. (eds.), Knowledge First: Approaches to Epistemology and Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. and Steup, M. (2014). “The analysis of knowledge,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Spring 2014 Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.): http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/knowledge-analysis/Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J. and Steup, M. (2018). “The analysis of knowledge,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2018 Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/knowledge-analysis/Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1987). Conditionals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (2011). “On Gettier holdouts,” Mind & Language 26: 468–81.Google Scholar
Jacquette, D. (1996). “Is nondefectively justified true belief knowledge?” Ratio 9: 115–27.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. I. (2014). “‘Intuition,’ intuition, concepts and the a priori,” in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (2004). “The obscure object of hallucination,” Philosophical Studies 120: 113–83.Google Scholar
Kallestrup, J. and Pritchard, D. (2011). “Virtue epistemology and epistemic Twin Earth,” European Journal of Philosophy 22: 335–57.Google Scholar
Kallestrup, J. and Pritchard, D. (2012). “Robust virtue epistemology and epistemic anti-individualism,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93: 84–103.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M. (1985). “It’s not what you know that counts,” The Journal of Philosophy 82: 350–63.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, A. (2007). “The rise and fall of experimental philosophy,” Philosophical Explorations 10: 95–118.Google Scholar
Kearns, S. (2007). “In praise of folly: A reply to Blome-Tillmann,” Analysis 67: 219–22.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. (2013). “Extended cognition and robust virtue epistemology,” Erkenntnis 78: 245–52.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. (2016). “Justified belief: Knowledge first-style,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93: 79–100.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. (forthcoming). “Knowledge first virtue epistemology,” in Carter, J. A., Gordon, E., and Jarvis, B. (eds.), Knowledge First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, M. and Yuan, Y. (2015). “No cross-cultural differences in the Gettier car case intuition: A replication study of Weinberg et al. 2001,” Episteme 12: 355–61.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. (1981). Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. (2002). “Skepticism,” in Moser, P. K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press, pp. 336–61.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. (2015). “Skepticism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/skepticism/Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. (2017). “The nature of knowledge,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. D. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
Koksvik, O. (2013). “Intuition and conscious reasoning,” The Philosophical Quarterly 63: 709–15.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and Its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2007). “Naturalism and intuitions,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 74: 27–49.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (1992). The Intellectual Virtues and the Life of the Mind, Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2005). “The closure mess,” in Kvanvig, J. L. (ed.), Certain Doubts. http://certaindoubts.com/the-closure-mess/Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2006). “Closure principles,” Philosophy Compass 3: 256–67.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2008). “Epistemic luck,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77: 272–81.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2017). “Lessons from Gettier,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P. D. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 152–68.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2007). “Why we don’t deserve credit for everything we know,” Synthese 158: 345–61.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2009). “Knowledge and credit,” Philosophical Studies 142: 27–42.Google Scholar
Laurence, S. and Margolis, E. (1999). “Concepts and Cognitive Science,” in Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3–81.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1965). “Knowledge, truth and evidence,” Analysis 25: 168–75.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of Knowledge. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Paxson, T. D. (1969). “Knowledge: Undefeated justified true belief,” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 225–37.Google Scholar
Leite, A. (2005). “On Williamson’s arguments that knowledge is a mental state,” Ratio 18: 165–75.Google Scholar
Leite, A. (2010). “Fallibilism,” in Dancy, J., Sosa, E., and Steup, M. (eds.), A Companion to Epistemology, 2nd edn. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 370–5.Google Scholar
Le Morvan, P. (2016). “Knowledge and security,” Philosophy 91: 411–30.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). “Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow,” Noûs 13: 455–76.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1996). “Elusive knowledge,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–67.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2014). “Fake barns and false dilemmas,” Episteme 11: 369–89.Google Scholar
Locke, D. (2015). “Knowledge, explanation, and motivating reasons,” American Philosophical Quarterly 52: 215–32.Google Scholar
Lowy, C. (1978). “Gettier’s notion of justification,” Mind 87: 105–8.Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. (2007). “The epistemology of thought experiments: First person versus third person approaches,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 128–59.Google Scholar
Luper-Foy, S. (1984). “The epistemic predicament: Knowledge, Nozickian tracking, and scepticism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62: 26–49.Google Scholar
Luper-Foy, S. (1987). “The possibility of skepticism,” in Luper-Foy, S. (ed.), The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 219–41.Google Scholar
Luper, S. (2003). “Indiscernability skepticism,” in Luper, S. (ed.), The Skeptics: Contemporary Essays. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
Luper, S. (2016). “Epistemic closure,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2006). “On the Gettier Problem problem,” in Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 148–68.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Stich, S., Rose, D., Alai, M., Angelucci, A., Berniūnas, R., et al. (2017). “The Gettier intuition from South America to Asia,” Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 34: 517–41.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Stich, S., Rose, D., Chatterjee, A., Karasawa, K., Struchiner, N., et al. (2017). “Gettier across cultures,” Noûs 51: 645–64.Google Scholar
MacIver, A. M. (1958). “Knowledge,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. Vol. 32: 1–24.Google Scholar
Madison, B. J. C. (2011). “Combating anti anti-luck epistemology,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89: 47–58.Google Scholar
Malmgren, A.-S. (2011). “Rationalism and the content of intuitive judgements,” Mind 120: 263–327.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Mares, E. D. (2004). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mares, E. D. (2005). “Relevance logic,” in Jacquette, D. (ed.), A Companion to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 609–27.Google Scholar
Mares, E. D. and Meyer, R. K. (2001). “Relevant logic,” in Goble, L. (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 280–308.Google Scholar
Marion, M. (2016). “John Cook Wilson,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/wilson/Google Scholar
Matilal, B. K. (1986). Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1998). Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (2010). “Tyler Burge on disjunctivism,” Philosophical Explorations 13: 243–55.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). “A counterexample to modus ponens,” The Journal of Philosophy 82: 462–71.Google Scholar
McGinn, M. (2012). “Non-inferential knowledge,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112: 1–28.Google Scholar
McGlynn, A. (2014). Knowledge First? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McMyler, B. (2012). “Responsibility for testimonial belief,” Erkenntnis 76: 337–52.Google Scholar
Melchior, G. (manuscript [book]) Knowing and Checking.Google Scholar
Merricks, T. (1995). “Warrant entails truth,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 841–55.Google Scholar
Millar, A. (2010). “Knowledge and recognition,” in Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A., The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Oxford University Press, pp. 89–188.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2015). “Competence to know,” Philosophical Studies 172: 29–56.Google Scholar
Mitova, V. (2015). “Truthy psychologism about evidence,” Philosophical Studies 172: 1105–26.Google Scholar
Montminy, M. (2014). “Knowledge despite falsehood,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 44: 463–75.Google Scholar
Moon, A. (2013). “Warrant does entail truth,” Synthese 184: 287–97.Google Scholar
Murphy, G L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. and Black, T. (2012). “Sensitivity meets explanation: An improved counterfactual condition on knowledge,” in Becker, K. and Black, T. (eds.), The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–42.Google Scholar
Nado, J. (2014). “Philosophical expertise,” Philosophy Compass 9: 631–41.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. (2012). “Intuitions and experiments: A defense of the case method in epistemology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 495–527.Google Scholar
Nagel, J., San Juan, V., and Mar, R. A. (2013). “Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs,” Cognition 129: 652–61.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2002). “S Knows that P,” Noûs 36: 663–81.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2003). “Contextualism and the problem of the external world,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 1–31.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2008). “What evidence do you have?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59: 89–119.Google Scholar
Neta, R. and Rohrbaugh, G. (2004). “Luminosity and the safety of knowledge,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 396–406.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. (1997). “Impossible worlds: A modest approach,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38: 535–72.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Olsson, E. J. (2015). “Gettier and the method of explication: A 60 year old solution to a 50 year old problem,” Philosophical Studies 172(1): 57–72.Google Scholar
Pappas, G. S. and Swain, M. (eds.) (1978). Essays on Knowledge and Justification. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993a). Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993b). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, D., Horne, Z., Pinillos, A., and Holyoak, K. (2013). “Justified true belief triggers false recall of knowing,” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1151–6.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2002). “Resurrecting the Moorean Response to the Sceptic,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10: 283–307.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2007). “Anti-luck epistemology,” Synthese 158: 277–97.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2008). “Sensitivity, safety, and anti-luck epistemology,” in Greco, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Scepticism, Oxford University Press, pp. 437–55.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2009). Knowledge. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2010). “Knowledge and understanding,” in Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A., The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). “Anti-luck virtue epistemology,” The Journal of Philosophy 109: 247–79.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2013). “Knowledge cannot be lucky,” in Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 152–64.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2014). “The modal account of luck,” Metaphilosophy 45: 594–619.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015a). “Anti-luck epistemology and the Gettier Problem,” Philosophical Studies 172: 93–111.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015b). “Risk,” Metaphilosophy 46: 436–61.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2016a). Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of our Believing. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2016b). “Epistemic risk,” The Journal of Philosophy 113: 550–71.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2017). “Knowledge, luck and virtue: Resolving the Gettier Problem,” in Borges, R., de Almeida, C., and Klein, P., (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 57–73.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (forthcoming). “Anti-risk epistemology and negative epistemic dependence,” Synthese.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A. (2010). The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. and Whittington, L. (eds.) (2015). The Philosophy of Luck. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, D. (2011). “The safety condition for knowledge,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www.iep.utm.edu/safety-c/Google Scholar
Ramsey, W. (1992). “Prototypes and conceptual analysis,” Topoi 11: 59–70.Google Scholar
Read, S. (1988). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Read, S. (1995). Thinking about Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. D. (2002). “Reliability and the value of knowledge,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64: 79–96.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. D. (2007), “Why epistemologists are so down on their luck,” Synthese 158: 329–44.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. D. (2009). “Two problems of easy credit,” Synthese 169: 201–16.Google Scholar
Roth, M. D. and Galis, L. (eds.) (1970). Knowing: Essays in the Analysis of Knowledge. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Roush, S. (2006). Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ryan, S. (1996). “Does warrant entail truth?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56: 183–92.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1971 [1946]). “Knowing how and knowing that,” in his Collected Papers, Vol. II. London: Hutchinson, pp. 212–25.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. (1997). “Easy possibilities,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 907–19.Google Scholar
Sanford, D. H. (2003). If P, Then Q: Conditionals and the Foundations of Reasoning, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2004). “From contextualism to contrastivism,” Philosophical Studies 119: 73–104.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2005). “Contrastive knowledge,” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 235–71.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, S. (2017). “Perceptual capacities, knowledge, and Gettier cases,” in de Almeida, C., Borges, R., and Klein, P. (eds.), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford University Press, pp. 74–95.Google Scholar
Schnee, I. (2015). “There is no knowledge from falsehood,” Episteme 12: 53–74.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Seyedsayamdost, H. (2015). “On normativity and epistemic intuitions: Failure of replication,” Episteme 12: 95–116.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2014). Varieties of Logic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shope, R. K. (1983). The Analysis of Knowing: A Decade of Research. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shope, R. K. (1984). “Cognitive abilities, conditionals, and knowledge: A response to Nozick,” The Journal of Philosophy 81: 29–48.Google Scholar
Shope, R. K. (2004). “The analysis of knowing,” in Niiniluoto, I., Sintonen, M., and Wolenski, J. (eds.). Handbook of Epistemology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 283–329.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (2011). The Contents of Visual Experience. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Moor, J., and Fogelin, R. (1990). “A defence of modus tollens,” Analysis 50: 9–16.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E. and Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. (1987). “The vagueness of knowledge,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17: 767–804.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. (1988). “Dogmatism, junk knowledge, and conditionals,” The Philosophical Quarterly 38: 433–54.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1980). “The raft and the pyramid: Coherence versus foundations in the theory of knowledge,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5: 3–25. (Reprinted in E. Sosa, [1991]. Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1988). “Beyond skepticism, to the best of our knowledge,” Mind 97: 153–89.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999a). “How must knowledge be modally related to what is known?” Philosophical Topics 26: 373–84.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999b). “How to defeat opposition to Moore,” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 141–53.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2003). “The place of truth in epistemology,” in DePaul, M. and Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Intellectual virtues: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 155–79.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007a). A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief And Reflective Knowledge, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007b). “Experimental philosophy and philosophical intuition,” Philosophical Studies 132: 99–107.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Vol. II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing Full Well. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2015). Judgement and Agency. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2017). Epistemology. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (forthcoming). Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What It Explains.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. (1992). Ethics, (trans.) Samuel Shirley, (ed.) Feldman, Seymour. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1968). “A theory of conditionals,” in Rescher, N. (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1975). “Indicative conditionals,” reprinted in Jackson, F. (ed.), Conditionals. Oxford University Press (1991), pp. 136–54.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. and Williamson, T. (2001). “Knowing how,” The Journal of Philosophy 98: 411–44.Google Scholar
Starmans, C. and Friedman, O. (2012). “The folk conception of knowledge,” Cognition 124: 272–83.Google Scholar
Starmans, C. and Friedman, O. (2013). “Taking ‘know’ for an answer: A reply to Nagel, San Juan, and Mar,” Cognition 129: 662–5.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (1992). “What is a theory of mental representation?” Mind 101: 243–61.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1992). Analysis and Metaphysics: An Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. (2007). Without Justification. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Swain, S., Alexander, J., and Weinberg, J. M. (2008). “The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on Truetemp,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 138–55.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2013). Perception: Essays after Frege. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2010). “Contingent a priori knowledge,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 327–44.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2011). “Manifest failure: The Gettier Problem solved,” Philosophers’ Imprint 11: 1–11.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2012a). “In Gettier’s wake,” in Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum, pp. 214–29.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2012b). “Is knowledge justified true belief?” Synthese 184: 247–59.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2013). “A conspicuous art: Putting Gettier to the test,” Philosophers’ Imprint 13: 1–16.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2014). “The problem of ESEE knowledge,” Ergo 1: 101–27.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015a). “An open and shut case: Epistemic closure in the manifest image,” Philosophers’ Imprint 15: 1–18.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015b). “From virtue epistemology to abilism: Theoretical and empirical developments,” in Miller, C. B., Furr, M. R., Knobel, A., and Fleeson, W. (eds.), Character: New Directions from Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology. Oxford University Press, pp. 315–30.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015c). “Skeptical appeal: The source-content bias,” Cognitive Science 39: 307–24.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2015d). “Unreliable knowledge,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90: 529–45.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016a). “Knowledge judgments in ‘Gettier’ cases,” in Sytsma, J. and Buckwalter, W. (eds.), A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 337–48.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016b). “Knowledge and assertion in ‘Gettier’ cases,” Philosophical Psychology 29: 759–75.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016c). “Vision, knowledge, and assertion,” Consciousness and Cognition 41: 41–9.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2016d). “A new paradigm for epistemology: From reliabilism to abilism,” Ergo 3: 189–231.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2017a). “Experimental, cross-cultural, and classical Indian epistemology,” Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research 34: 501–16.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2017b). “Knowledge attributions in iterated fake barn cases,” Analysis 77: 104–15.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (manuscript [unpublished paper]). “A peculiar and perpetual tendency: An asymmetry in knowledge attribution for affirmations and negations.”Google Scholar
Turri, J. (in press). “Knowledge attributions and lottery cases: A review and new evidence.”Google Scholar
Turri, J. and Buckwalter, W. (2017). “Descartes’s schism, Locke’s reunion: Completing the pragmatic turn in epistemology,” American Philosophical Quarterly 54: 25–46.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., and Blouw, P. (2014). “Knowledge and luck,” Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1958–63.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., and Blouw, P. (2015). “Knowledge and luck,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22: 378–90.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., and Rose, D. (2016). “Actionability judgments cause knowledge judgments,” Thought 5: 212–22.Google Scholar
Turri, J. and Friedman, O. (2014). “Winners and losers in the folk epistemology of lotteries,” in Beebe, J. R. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Epistemology. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 45–69.Google Scholar
Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vaesen, K. (2011). “Knowledge without credit, exhibit 4: Extended cognition,” Synthese 181: 515–29.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (2004). “Externalism and disjunctivism,” in Schantz, R. (ed.), The Externalist Challenge. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 481–95.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (1987). “Tracking, closure, and inductive knowledge,” in Luper-Foy, S. (ed.), The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 197–215.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (1990). “Are there counterexamples to the closure principle?” in Roth, M. and Ross, G. (eds.), Doubting: Contemporary Perspectives on Skepticism. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (2000). “Reliabilism leveled,” The Journal of Philosophy 97: 602–23.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (2007). “Subjunctivitis,” Philosophical Studies 134: 73–88.Google Scholar
Warfield, T. A. (2005). “Knowledge from falsehood,” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 405–16.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. (2003). “What good are counterexamples?” Philosophical Studies 115: 1–31.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. M. (2007). “How to challenge intuitions empirically without risking skepticism,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 318–43.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. M. and Alexander, J. (2014). “The challenge of sticking with intuitions through thick and thin,” in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J., Nichols, S., and Stich, S. (2001). “Normativity and epistemic intuitions,” Philosophical Topics 29: 429–60.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (1978). “Inference, justification, and the analysis of knowledge,” The Journal of Philosophy 75: 249–63.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2015). “What’s so special about human knowledge?” Episteme 12: 249–68.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2004). “Philosophical ‘intuitions’ and scepticism about judgement,” Dialectica 58: 109–53.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2008). The Philosophy of Philosophy, Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2009). “Replies to critics,” in Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 279–384.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2011). “Knowledge first epistemology,” in Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. New York: Routledge, pp. 208–18.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2013). “How deep is the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge? The a priori in philosophy,” in Casullo, A. and Thurow, J. C. (eds.), The A Priori in Philosophy. Oxford University Press, pp. 291–312.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woods, M. (1997). Conditionals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wright, J. C. (2010). “On intuitional stability: The clear, the strong, and the paradigmatic,” Cognition 115: 491–503.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T. (1994). “The inescapability of Gettier problems,” The Philosophical Quarterly 44: 65–73.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T. (1999). “What is knowledge?” in Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 92–116.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T. (2000). “From reliabilism to virtue epistemology,” The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 5: 173–9.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T. (2009). On Epistemology. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: The Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 November 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316827413.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: The Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 November 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316827413.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: The Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 November 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316827413.016
Available formats
×