刘易斯知识归因论的不足之处

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY THEORIA Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2298/theo2303021d
Aleksandra Davidovic
{"title":"刘易斯知识归因论的不足之处","authors":"Aleksandra Davidovic","doi":"10.2298/theo2303021d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores and criticizes some aspects of David Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section one I present the sceptical paradox and the basic assumptions of epistemic contextualism. In section two I explain how Lewis combines the relevant alternatives theory with epistemic contextualism in formulating his theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section three I show that this theory allows knowledge which is based purely on ignoring and I argue that this unfavourable consequence stems from the way in which Lewis formulated the rule of belief within his theory. In the concluding section I point out the problematic aspects and ad hoc character of Lewis? rule of attention and claim that it was thus formulated so as to be able to solve the sceptical paradox. Finally, I claim that Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions is untenable in its original form.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some weak points of Lewis’ theory of knowledge ascriptions\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandra Davidovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/theo2303021d\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores and criticizes some aspects of David Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section one I present the sceptical paradox and the basic assumptions of epistemic contextualism. In section two I explain how Lewis combines the relevant alternatives theory with epistemic contextualism in formulating his theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section three I show that this theory allows knowledge which is based purely on ignoring and I argue that this unfavourable consequence stems from the way in which Lewis formulated the rule of belief within his theory. In the concluding section I point out the problematic aspects and ad hoc character of Lewis? rule of attention and claim that it was thus formulated so as to be able to solve the sceptical paradox. Finally, I claim that Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions is untenable in its original form.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEORIA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEORIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo2303021d\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo2303021d","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对大卫·刘易斯的一些观点进行了探讨和批判。知识归因论。在第一节中,我提出了怀疑论悖论和认识论语境主义的基本假设。在第二节中,我将解释刘易斯如何将相关替代理论与认识论语境主义结合起来,形成他的知识归因理论。在第三节中,我表明这一理论允许纯粹基于忽视的知识,我认为这种不利的结果源于刘易斯在他的理论中制定信念规则的方式。在结束语部分,我指出了刘易斯?注意规则,并声称它是这样制定的,以便能够解决怀疑的悖论。最后,我认为刘易斯?知识归因论在其原始形式下是站不住脚的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Some weak points of Lewis’ theory of knowledge ascriptions
This paper explores and criticizes some aspects of David Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section one I present the sceptical paradox and the basic assumptions of epistemic contextualism. In section two I explain how Lewis combines the relevant alternatives theory with epistemic contextualism in formulating his theory of knowledge ascriptions. In section three I show that this theory allows knowledge which is based purely on ignoring and I argue that this unfavourable consequence stems from the way in which Lewis formulated the rule of belief within his theory. In the concluding section I point out the problematic aspects and ad hoc character of Lewis? rule of attention and claim that it was thus formulated so as to be able to solve the sceptical paradox. Finally, I claim that Lewis? theory of knowledge ascriptions is untenable in its original form.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Validity of inferences and validity of demonstrations Prawitz's completeness conjecture: A reassessment On certainty, Left Wittgensteinianism and conceptual change Counterfactual power and genuine choice Whisper words of wisdom: Asides and appositives in Kaplan's logic of demonstratives
×
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