Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rcd7l Total loading time: 0.202 Render date: 2021-10-18T00:42:56.327Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Williamsonian modal epistemology, possibility-based

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Barbara Vetter*
Affiliation:
Institut für Philosophie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.

Abstract

Williamsonian modal epistemology (WME) is characterized by two commitments: realism about modality, and anti-exceptionalism about our modal knowledge. Williamson's own counterfactual-based modal epistemology is the best known implementation of WME, but not the only option that is available. I sketch and defend an alternative implementation which takes our knowledge of metaphysical modality to arise, not from knowledge of counterfactuals, but from our knowledge of ordinary possibility statements of the form ‘x can F’. I defend this view against a criticism indicated in Williamson's own work, and argue that it is better connected to the semantics of modal language.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 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

Arregui, Ana. 2005. Backtracking Counterfactuals and Iterated Modalities. Handout.Google Scholar
Brennan, Virginia. 1993. “Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs.” Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, Keith. 1991. “Epistemic Possibilities.” Philosophical Review 100: 581605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, Dorothy. 2004. “Two Kinds of Possibility.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary 78: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, Dorothy. 2008. “Counterfactuals.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, Dorothy. 2007. “On Conditionals.” In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, edited by Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F., Vol. 14, 127221. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, Dorothy. 2011. “Causation First: Why Causation is Prior to Counterfactuals.” In Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding Causation: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology, 230–241, edited by Hoerl, C., McCormack, T. and Beck, S. R..Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2012. “Subjunctive Conditionals.” In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by Fara, Delia Graff & Russel, Gillian, 466477. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Gillies, Anthony S.. 2008. “CIA Leaks.” Philosophical Review 117: 7798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Iatridou, Sabine. 2003. “Epistemic Containment.” Lingistic Inquiry 34: 173198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. “Aspects of Modality.” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. “On the Interaction of Aspect and Modal Auxiliaries.” Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 279315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. “On the Event Relativity of Modal Auxiliaries.” Natural Language Semantics 18: 79114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Bob. 2003. “Knowledge of Possibility and Knowledge of Necessity.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 103, 1/20.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. “The Grammatical Ingredients of Counteractuality.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, C. S. 2008. “Modal Knowledge, Counterfactual Knowledge and the Role of Experience.” Philosophical Quarterly 58: 693701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khoo, Justin. 2015. “On Indicative and Subjunctive Conditionals.” Philosopher's Imprint 15(32): 140.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. “What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. “The Notional Category of Modality.” In Words, Worlds, and Contexts, edited by Eikmeyer, H. J. & Rieser, H., New Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. “Modality.” In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 639–650, edited by von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter. de Gruyter: Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krödel, Thomas. 2012. “Counterfactuals and the Epistemology of Modality.” Philosopher's Imprint 12(12): 114.Google Scholar
Krödel, Thomas. Forthcoming. “Modal Knowledge, Evolution, and Counterfactuals.” In Modal Epistemology after Rationalism, edited by Fischer, R. W. & Leon, F.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1976. “The Paradoxes of Time Travel.” American Philosophical Quarterly 13: 145152.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow.” Nous 13: 455476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2011. “Do We See Apples as Edible?Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92: 305322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2012. “Action-Oriented Perception.” European Journal of Philosophy 20: 430446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2013. Between Perception and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. 1997. “Impossible Worlds: A Modest Approach.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38: 535572.Google Scholar
Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roca Royes, Sonia. 2011. “Modal Knowledge and Counterfactual Knowledge.” Logique et analyse 54: 537552.Google Scholar
Roca Royes, Sonia. Forthcoming. “Similarity and Possibility: An Epistemology of de re Possibility for Concrete Entities.” In Modal Epistemology after Rationalism, edited by Fischer, B. & Leon, F.Google Scholar
Spencer, Jack. Forthcoming. “Able to Do the Impossible.” Mind.Google Scholar
Strohminger, Margot. Forthcoming. “Perceptual knowledge of nonactual possibilities.” Philosophical Perspectives, 29.Google Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2010. “On Scope Relations between Quantifiers and Epistemic Modals.” Journal of Semantics 27: 529540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaidya, Anand. 2015. “The Epistemology of Modality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Summer, , Edward N. Zalta. chapter http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/modality-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2013. “Can’ without Possible Worlds. Semantics for Anti-Humeans.” Philosophers 13: 127.Google Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2014. “Dispositions without Conditionals.” Mind 123: 129156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2015. Potentiality: From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. Forthcoming. “Counterpossibles (not only) for Dispositionalists.” Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Viebahn, Emanuel, and Vetter, Barbara. Forthcoming. “How Many Meanings for ‘May’? The Case for Modal Polysemy.” Philosopher's Imprint.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1999. “Existence and Contingency.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73: 181203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2002. “Necessary Existents.” In Logic, Thought and Language, edited by O’Hear, A., 233251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2003. “Everything.” Philosophical Perspectives 17: 415465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2013. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. Forthcoming-a. “Counterpossibles.” In Philosophical Fictionalism, edited by Armour-Garb, Brad & Kroon, Fred.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. Forthcoming-b. “Knowing by Imagining.” In Knowledge through Imagination, edited by Kind, Amy, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. ms. “Modal Science.” To appear in The Philosophy of Modality: Beyond the Standard Model, edited by Vaidya, Anand & Prelević, Duko. [Internet document].Google Scholar
14
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Williamsonian modal epistemology, possibility-based
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Williamsonian modal epistemology, possibility-based
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Williamsonian modal epistemology, possibility-based
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *