A Note on Knowing and Checking

Danilo Šuster
{"title":"A Note on Knowing and Checking","authors":"Danilo Šuster","doi":"10.1007/s12136-022-00528-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>I raise some questions about differentiations between methods, checking methods, and appropriate methods in terms of their modal profiles. Melchior argues that there can be sensitive checking methods which are not safe. I try to show that such methods are epistemically deficient. I introduce restricted sensitivity (RS) and investigate its checking profile. RS with respect to a proposition <i>p</i> requires that we consider more non-p worlds (not just the closest ones) but not those which are irrelevant (outside a sphere of seriously possible worlds). Restrictedly sensitive methods (vacuously sensitive and strongly safe) based on the appropriate type of Bayesian reasoning might be sufficient for some kind of “modest” checking. Melchior defends a uniform account of checking based on insensitivity even in the case of necessary true propositions and he introduces the apparatus of impossible worlds. I argue that an unsatisfactory method for checking a necessary true proposition is a way of reaching a belief in the target proposition (different from the original one) which might easily not have delivered a true one. I also indicate some limitations of the idea that checking (and knowing) is essentially modal in character.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-022-00528-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

I raise some questions about differentiations between methods, checking methods, and appropriate methods in terms of their modal profiles. Melchior argues that there can be sensitive checking methods which are not safe. I try to show that such methods are epistemically deficient. I introduce restricted sensitivity (RS) and investigate its checking profile. RS with respect to a proposition p requires that we consider more non-p worlds (not just the closest ones) but not those which are irrelevant (outside a sphere of seriously possible worlds). Restrictedly sensitive methods (vacuously sensitive and strongly safe) based on the appropriate type of Bayesian reasoning might be sufficient for some kind of “modest” checking. Melchior defends a uniform account of checking based on insensitivity even in the case of necessary true propositions and he introduces the apparatus of impossible worlds. I argue that an unsatisfactory method for checking a necessary true proposition is a way of reaching a belief in the target proposition (different from the original one) which might easily not have delivered a true one. I also indicate some limitations of the idea that checking (and knowing) is essentially modal in character.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于认识与检查的一点注记
我提出了一些关于方法、检查方法和适当方法之间的区别的问题。Melchior认为,可能存在一些不安全的敏感检查方法。我试图证明这些方法在认知上是有缺陷的。本文介绍了限制灵敏度(RS),并对其检测概况进行了研究。关于命题p的RS要求我们考虑更多的非p世界(不仅仅是最接近的世界)但不是那些不相关的世界(在严肃的可能世界范围之外)基于适当类型的贝叶斯推理的受限敏感方法(真空敏感和强安全)可能足以进行某种“适度”检查。Melchior为基于不敏感的检验的统一解释辩护,即使在必要真命题的情况下,他也引入了不可能世界的装置。我认为,检验一个必要真命题的不令人满意的方法是一种对目标命题(不同于原始命题)的信念的方法,而目标命题可能很容易无法提供真命题。我还指出了检查(和知道)本质上是模态特征的想法的一些局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
期刊最新文献
Existence Is Not Relativistically Invariant—Part 1: Meta-ontology Dead Past, Ad hocness, and Zombies Unfamiliarity in Logic? How to Unravel McSweeney’s Dilemma for Logical Realism On Wittgenstein’s Dispensation with “ = ” in the Tractatus and its Philosophical Background. A Critical Study Ficta and Amorphism: a Proposal for a Theory of Fictional Entities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1