Certainty and Assertion

Q2 Arts and Humanities DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2022-11-18 DOI:10.48106/dial.v74.i3.02
J. Vollet
{"title":"Certainty and Assertion","authors":"J. Vollet","doi":"10.48106/dial.v74.i3.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is widely held that assertions are partially governed by an epistemic norm. But what is the epistemic condition set out in the norm? Is it knowledge, truth, belief, or something else? In this paper, I defend a view similar to that of Stanley (2008), according to which the relevant epistemic condition is epistemic certainty, where epistemic certainty (but not knowledge) is context-sensitive. I start by distinguishing epistemic certainty, subjective certainty, and knowledge. Then, I explain why it's much more plausible to think that \"certain\", rather than \"know\", is context-sensitive. After that, I respond to an important worry raised by Pritchard, according to which the proposed view is too strong to accommodate our current practice of assertion. I then show that the main linguistic and conversational data advanced in the recent literature in favour of the knowledge condition are best explained by the certainty view. Finally, I offer two principled considerations: the certainty view is the only one compatible with three independently plausible claims and it fits very well with the common thought that knowledge does not entail certainty.","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v74.i3.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is widely held that assertions are partially governed by an epistemic norm. But what is the epistemic condition set out in the norm? Is it knowledge, truth, belief, or something else? In this paper, I defend a view similar to that of Stanley (2008), according to which the relevant epistemic condition is epistemic certainty, where epistemic certainty (but not knowledge) is context-sensitive. I start by distinguishing epistemic certainty, subjective certainty, and knowledge. Then, I explain why it's much more plausible to think that "certain", rather than "know", is context-sensitive. After that, I respond to an important worry raised by Pritchard, according to which the proposed view is too strong to accommodate our current practice of assertion. I then show that the main linguistic and conversational data advanced in the recent literature in favour of the knowledge condition are best explained by the certainty view. Finally, I offer two principled considerations: the certainty view is the only one compatible with three independently plausible claims and it fits very well with the common thought that knowledge does not entail certainty.
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
确定性和断言
人们普遍认为,断言在一定程度上受认识规范的支配。但是,规范中规定的认识条件是什么?是知识、真理、信仰还是其他什么?在本文中,我为类似于Stanley(2008)的观点辩护,根据该观点,相关的认识条件是认识确定性,其中认识确定性(但不是知识)是上下文敏感的。我首先区分认识确定性、主观确定性和知识。然后,我解释了为什么认为“确定”而不是“知道”是上下文敏感的更合理。之后,我回应了普里查德提出的一个重要担忧,即拟议的观点过于强烈,无法适应我们目前的断言做法。然后,我表明,最近文献中提出的有利于知识条件的主要语言和会话数据最好用确定性观点来解释。最后,我提出了两个原则性的考虑:确定性观点是唯一一个与三种独立可信的主张相兼容的观点,它非常符合知识并不意味着确定性的普遍观点。
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
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
期刊最新文献
Robinson's Regress Argument from Vagueness to Dualism David Armstrong on the Metaphysics of Mathematics Are There Occurrent Continuants? Review of Willaschek (2018) Considerations on Logical Consequence and Natural Language
×
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