Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:32:48.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motivating the Relevant Alternatives Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Patrick Rysiew
Patrick Rysiew*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Knowing that p requires being able to ‘rule out’ the relevant not-p alternatives. Such is the core claim of the Relevant Alternatives (RA) theorist. Of course, to endorse the core claim is not to have a complete and satisfactory account of knowing: any RA theorist has some explaining to do. Most obviously, anyone who endorses the core claim must ultimately provide an account of ‘ruling out’ and ‘relevance’. And some who‘ve been critical of the whole RA approach have done so because of a scepticism about the prospects of cashing these notions out in a satisfactory way.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 259 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

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

(Pagination of in-text citations follows that of the reprint, where listed.)Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1946. ‘Other Minds.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume XX. Reprinted in Austin's Philosophical Papers, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 76–116.Google Scholar
Bach, K. Forthcoming. ‘The Emperor's New “Knows”.’ In Contextualism in Philosophy: On Epistemology, Meaning, and Truth, Preyer, G. and Peter, G. eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cargile, J. 1972. ‘In Reply to “A Defense of Scepticism”.’ The Philosophical Review 81 229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R.M. 1977. Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R.M. 1982. ‘The Problem of the Criterion.’ In The Foundations of Knowing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1986. ‘Knowledge and Context.’ The Journal of Philosophy 83 574–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 1988. ‘How to be a Fallibilist.’ Philosophical Perspectives, Volume 2 91–123.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1991. ‘Skepticism, Relevance, and Relativity.’ In McLaughlin: 17–37.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1992. ‘Relevant Alternatives.’ In A Companion to Epistemology, Dancy, J. and Sosa, E. eds. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 430–3.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1999. ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and The Structure of Reasons.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology, Tomberlin, J.E. ed. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview. 57–89.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1992. ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52.4. 913–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Sceptical Problem.’ The Philosophical Review 104.1. 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1999. ‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense.’ In The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Greco, J. and Sosa, E. eds. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 185–203.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 2004. ‘Sosa, Safety, Sensitivity, and Sceptical Hypotheses’, in Greco, 2004.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1970. ‘Epistemic Operators.’ The Journal of Philosophy 67.24. 1007-23. Reprinted in Dretske, 2000: 30–47.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1971. ‘Conclusive Reasons.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49.1. 1–22. Reprinted in Dretske, 2000: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 1981a. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted in 1999. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1981b. ‘The Pragmatic Dimension of Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies 40 363-78. Reprinted in Dretske, 2000: 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 1991. ‘Knowledge: Sanford and Cohen.’ In McLaughlin: 185–96.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 2000. Perception, Knowledge and Belief: Selected Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. and S. Bernecker, eds. 2000. Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 1999. ‘Contextualism and Skepticism.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology. 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 2001. ‘Skeptical Problems, Contextualist Solutions.’ Philosophical Studies 103. 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. 1987. ‘Stoics and Skeptics on Clear and Distinct Impressions.’ In Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ The Journal of Philosophy 73. 771-91. Reprinted in Goldman, 1992: 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1992. Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. ed. 2004. Ernest Sosa and His Critics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. 1999a. ‘Relevant Alternatives and Closure.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77.2. 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. 1999b. ‘The Proper Role for Contextualism in an Anti-Luck Epistemology.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology. 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofweber, T. 1999. ‘Contextualism and the Meaning-Intention Problem.’ In Cognition, Agency and Rationality, Korta, K. Sosa, E. and Arrazola, X. eds. Boston: Kluwer. 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hookway, C. 1996. ‘Questions of Context.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96.1.1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P.D. 1981. Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klein, P.D. 1981. Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klein, P.D. 1995. ‘Scepticism and Closure: Why the Evil Genius Argument Fails.’ Philosophical Topics 23.1. 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2000. ‘The Contextualist Evasion of Epistemology.’ Philosophical Issues 10. 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8. 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74.4. 549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C. 1984. ‘The Concept of Knowledge.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume IX. 529–54.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B.P. ed. 1991. Dretske and His Critics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Plato, 1981. Five Dialogues, trans. Grube, G.M.A.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. 1974. Knowledge and Justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2000. ‘Closure and Context.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78.2. 275–80.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2001. ‘The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ Noüs 35.4. 477–514.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2005. ‘Contesting Contextualism.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 69. 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. 1991. ‘The Pragmatic Fallacy.’ Philosophical Studies 63. 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartwell, C. 1991. ‘Knowledge is Merely True Belief.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 28. 157–65.Google Scholar
Sartwell, C. 1992. ‘Why Knowledge is Merely True Belief.’ The Journal of Philosophy 89. 167–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1996. ‘Contextualist Solutions to Scepticism.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96. 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 1999. ‘How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology. 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2000. ‘Skepticism and Contextualism.’ Philosophical Issues 10. 1-18. Stanley, J. 2004. ‘On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism.’ Philosophical Studies 119. 119–146.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 2005. ‘Fallibilism and Concessive Knowledge Attributions.’ Analysis 65.2. 126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, B. 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, P. 1975. Ignorance: A Casefor Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. 1999. ‘The New Relevant Alternatives Theory.’ Philosophical Perspectives 13: Epistemology. 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. 1996. Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar