Infallibilism and Evidential Support
This chapter examines and criticizes the infallibilist’s commitment to the Sufficiency of Knowledge for Self-Support : if one knows that p then p is part of one’s evidence for p. This claim about evidential support faces the important challenge of explaining why it is generally infelicitous to cite...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Language: | unknown |
Published: |
Oxford University Press
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 |
id |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 2023-05-15T14:35:57+02:00 Infallibilism and Evidential Support Brown, Jessica 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 unknown Oxford University Press Oxford Scholarship Online book 2018 croxfordunivpr https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 2022-08-05T10:28:50Z This chapter examines and criticizes the infallibilist’s commitment to the Sufficiency of Knowledge for Self-Support : if one knows that p then p is part of one’s evidence for p. This claim about evidential support faces the important challenge of explaining why it is generally infelicitous to cite a known proposition as evidence for itself. For instance, even if one knows, say, that Arctic sea ice is retreating, it’s infelicitous to reply to a request for evidence that Arctic sea ice is retreating by simply saying, ‘Arctic sea ice is retreating’. Intuitively, this reply constitutes a refusal to provide evidence that Arctic sea ice is retreating. The infallibilist might attempt to appeal to pragmatics or an error theory to explain away the infelicity. But I argue that these strategies fail. Book Arctic Sea ice Oxford University Press (via Crossref) Arctic |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Oxford University Press (via Crossref) |
op_collection_id |
croxfordunivpr |
language |
unknown |
description |
This chapter examines and criticizes the infallibilist’s commitment to the Sufficiency of Knowledge for Self-Support : if one knows that p then p is part of one’s evidence for p. This claim about evidential support faces the important challenge of explaining why it is generally infelicitous to cite a known proposition as evidence for itself. For instance, even if one knows, say, that Arctic sea ice is retreating, it’s infelicitous to reply to a request for evidence that Arctic sea ice is retreating by simply saying, ‘Arctic sea ice is retreating’. Intuitively, this reply constitutes a refusal to provide evidence that Arctic sea ice is retreating. The infallibilist might attempt to appeal to pragmatics or an error theory to explain away the infelicity. But I argue that these strategies fail. |
format |
Book |
author |
Brown, Jessica |
spellingShingle |
Brown, Jessica Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
author_facet |
Brown, Jessica |
author_sort |
Brown, Jessica |
title |
Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
title_short |
Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
title_full |
Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
title_fullStr |
Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
title_full_unstemmed |
Infallibilism and Evidential Support |
title_sort |
infallibilism and evidential support |
publisher |
Oxford University Press |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 |
geographic |
Arctic |
geographic_facet |
Arctic |
genre |
Arctic Sea ice |
genre_facet |
Arctic Sea ice |
op_source |
Oxford Scholarship Online |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801771.003.0003 |
_version_ |
1766308676889477120 |