Wybrane odpowiedzi na argument sceptyczny

Autor

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.44.07

Słowa kluczowe:

argument sceptyczny, kontekstualizm, teza o pociąganiu, zasada domknięcia, relewantne alternatywy

Abstrakt

The aim of this paper is to present various answers to the skeptical argument and propose an alternative solution. Suggested solution refers to the results of empirical research which lead to abandonment of entailment thesis concerning knowledge. My answer is contextualist inasmuch as it recognizes the existence of different concepts of knowledge. The applicability of these concepts depends on the situation; in a skeptical context the concept of knowledge is not accompanied by appropriate belief, and in ordinary contexts knowledge requires a belief of specific content.

Bibliografia

Buckwalter W., Rose D., Turri J. (2013). Belief through Thick and Thin. Nous, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1-28, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12048

Cohen S. (2008), Ascriber Contextualism. W. Greco J. (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism (415-434). Oxford University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0020

DeRose K. (1999), Introduction: Responding to Skepticism. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (1-22). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

DeRose K. (1999), Solving the Skeptical Problem. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (183-219). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Dretske F. (1999), Epistemic Operators. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (131-144). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Forbes G. (1999), Realism and Skepticism: Brains in a Vat Revisited. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (61-75). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Lemos N. (2008), Moore and Skepticism. W: Greco J. (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism (330-345). Oxford University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0016

Lewis D. (1999), Elusive Knowledge. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (220-239). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Myers-Schulz B., Schwitzgebel E. (2013). Knowing that p without believing that p. Nous, Vol. 47, No. 2, 371-384 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12022

Nozick R. (1999), Philosophical Explanations. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (156-179) Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Pritchard D. (2008), Sensitivity, Safety and Antiluck Epistemology. W: Greco J. (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism (437-455). Oxford University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0021

Putnam H. (1999), Brains in a Vat. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (27-42). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Rose D., Schaffer J. (2013), Knowledge Entails Dispositional Belief. Philosophical Studies, 166, 19-50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-0052-z

Sosa E. (2000), Skepticism and Contextualism. Philosophical Issues, 10, 1-18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-2237.2000.tb00002.x

Stine G. (1999), Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure. W: DeRose K., Warfield T. A. (red.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (145-155). Oxford University Press, New-York Oxford

Pobrania

Opublikowane

2019-03-30

Numer

Dział

Artykuły

Jak cytować

Ebner, Maria. 2019. “Wybrane Odpowiedzi Na Argument Sceptyczny”. Hybris 44 (1): 105-16. https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.44.07.