Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-4h525 Total loading time: 0.254 Render date: 2021-06-24T16:25:35.197Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

How to get Certain Knowledge from Fallible Justification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2019

Peter D. Klein
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, NJ, USA
Corresponding

Abstract

“Real knowledge,” as I use the term, is the most highly prized form of true belief sought by an epistemic agent. This paper argues that defeasible infinitism provides a good way to characterize real knowledge and it shows how real knowledge can arise from fallible justification. Then, I argue that there are two ways of interpreting Ernest Sosa's account of real knowledge as belief that is aptly formed and capable of being fully defended. On the one hand, if beliefs are aptly formed only if they have a specific causal etiology, namely that they are efficiently caused fully or partially by virtuous characteristics of the epistemic agent, then Sosa's account falls prey to what I call the problem of the Hazard of Empirical Disconfirmation (HED). The HED problem applies to all forms of causal accounts of real knowledge and is simply that as we gain more empirical knowledge about the causal origins of our true beliefs that are the most highly prized we will discover that they do not always (or even hardly ever) satisfy the required efficient causal constraints. Bluntly put, having sufficiently good reasons for our beliefs might not require that the beliefs have the requisite efficient causal etiology. On the other hand, there is a way of interpreting Sosa's views that does not include an efficient causal prerequisite. That interpretation makes Sosa's account of real knowledge almost identical to defeasible infinitism but expressed in an alternate vocabulary. Such a view is not subject to the HED problem and it can solve the deep problem in epistemology, namely how to get epistemically certain (as opposed to psychologically certain) knowledge from fallible justification.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aristotle, (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vols I and II. Edited by Cooper, J.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. and Peijnenburg, J. (2017). Fading Foundations: Probability and the Regress Problem. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayer, A.J. (1956). The Problem of Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1966). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1955). Philosophical Works of Descartes. Edited by E. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Empiricus, S. (1976). Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by Bury, R.G.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, R. (1978). ‘Are Epistemic Concepts Reducible to Ethical Concepts?’ In Goldman, A. and Kim, J. (eds), Values and Morals. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Gettier, E. (1963). ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?Analysis 23, 121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (1979). ‘What Is Justified Belief?’ In Pappas, G.S. (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, pp. 123. Dordrecht: Reidel; reprinted in Goldman A. 2012. Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology, pp. 29–49. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, R. (1973). Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R. (2017). ‘Sed ubi Socrates Currit? On the Gettier Problem Before Gettier.’ In Borges, R., de Almeida, C. and Klein, P. (eds), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem, pp. 135–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature. Second Edition. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L.A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kant, E. (1961). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Smith, N.K.. New York, NY: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Klein, P. (1980). ‘Misleading Evidence and the Restoration of Justification.’ Philosophical Studies 37(1), 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (1983). ‘Real Knowledge.’ Synthese 55(2), 143–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (1995). ‘Skepticism and Closure: Why the Evil Genius Argument Fails.’ Philosophical Topics 23(1), 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (2004 a). ‘Closure Matters: Skepticism and Easy Knowledge.’ Philosophical Issues 14, 165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (2004 b). ‘There is No Good Reason to be an Academic Skeptic.’ In Luper, S. (ed.), Essential Knowledge, pp. 299309. New York, NY: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
Klein, P. (2005). ‘Is Infinitism the Solution to the Epistemic Regress Problem?’ In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 131–40. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [2nd edition, Wiley Blackwell, 2014, pp. 274–82.]Google Scholar
Klein, P. (2007). ‘Human Knowledge and the Infinite Progress of Reasoning.’ Philosophical Studies 134(1), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (2014). ‘Reasons, Reasoning, and Knowledge: A Proposed Rapprochement between Infinitism and Foundationalism.’ In Klein, P. and Turri, J. (eds), Ad Infinitum: New Essays on Epistemological Infinitism, pp. 105–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. (2017). ‘The Nature of Knowledge.’ In Borges, R., de Almeida, C. and Klein, P. (eds), Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem, pp. 3556. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (2011). Philosophical Troubles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Paxson, T. (1969). ‘Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief.’ Journal of Philosophy 66(8), 225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, N. (1952). ‘Knowledge and Belief.’ Mind 61, 178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1974). The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VII – A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Part I [1843]. Book III. Edited by Robson, J.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. Also available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/246.Google Scholar
Moore, G.E. (1994). Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: A. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Pasnau, R. (1995). ‘William Heytesbury on Knowledge: Epistemology without Necessary and Sufficient Conditions.’ History of Philosophy Quarterly 12, 347–66.Google Scholar
Pasnau, R. (1997). Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plato, (1997). Complete Works. Edited by Cooper, J.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1974). Knowledge and Justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1987). ‘Defeasible Reasoning.’ Cognitive Science 11, 481518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shope, R. (1983). The Analysis of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999). ‘How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.’ Noûs (Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, Epistemology) 33(s13), 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2001). ‘Varieties of Causation.’ In Sosa, E. and Tooley, M. (eds), Oxford Readings in Philosophy, pp. 234–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007). A Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2014). ‘Infinitism.’ In Klein, P. and Turri, J. (eds), Ad Infinitum: New Essays on Epistemological Infinitism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2014). ‘Creative Reasoning.’ In Klein, P. and Turri, J. (eds), Ad Infinitum: New Essays on Epistemological Infinitism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1994). ‘The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.’ Philosophical Quarterly 44(174), 6573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
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.

How to get Certain Knowledge from Fallible Justification
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.

How to get Certain Knowledge from Fallible Justification
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.

How to get Certain Knowledge from Fallible Justification
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? *