Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T17:37:21.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

KNOWLEDGE AND EVIDENCE YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Matthew A. Benton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epistemologists focus primarily on cases of knowledge, belief, or credence where the evidence which one possesses, or on which one is relying, plays a fundamental role in the epistemic or normative status of one's doxastic state. Recent work in epistemology goes beyond the evidence one possesses to consider the relevance for such statuses of evidence which one does not possess, particularly when there is a sense in which one should have had some evidence. I focus here on Sanford Goldberg's approach (“Should Have Known,” Synthese, Forthcoming; and “On the Epistemic Significance of Evidence You Should Have Had,” Episteme, 2016, this issue); but the discussion will interest anyone working on epistemic defeat.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: 2015 Episteme Conference , December 2016 , pp. 471 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Austin, J. L. 1946. ‘Other Minds.’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Supplementary Volumes. Reprinted in Austin (1961).Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1961. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baker-Hytch, M. and Benton, M. A. 2015. ‘Defeatism Defeated.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 29: 40–66.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. 2015. ‘The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 65: 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. A. 2014. ‘Knowledge Norms.’ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/kn-norms/.Google Scholar
Benton, M. A. Forthcoming. ‘Gricean Quality.’ Noûs.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. 2010. ‘Strengthening the Case for Knowledge from Falsehood.’ Analysis, 70: 666–9.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. C. 2015. Assertion: On the Philosophical Significance of Assertoric Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. C. 2016. ‘On the Epistemic Significance of Evidence You Should Have Had.’ Episteme. doi: 10.1017/epi.2016.24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. C. Forthcoming. ‘Should Have Known.' Synthese. Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Rabinowitz, D. Forthcoming. ‘Knowledge and False Belief.’ In Borges, R., Almeida, C. de and Klein, P. (eds), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Srinivasan, A. 2013. ‘Disagreement Without Transparency: Some Bleak Thoughts.’ In Christensen, David and Lackey, Jennifer (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, 9–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 1983. ‘Justified Belief and Epistemically Responsible Action.’ Philosophical Review, 92: 33–48.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2008. Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2010. ‘Unreasonable Knowledge.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 1–21.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014. ‘Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88: 314–45.Google Scholar
Warfield, T. A. 2005. ‘Knowledge from Falsehood.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 405–16.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar