Getting Gettier Right: Reply to Mizrahi

Logos and Episteme 8 (3):347-357 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Moti Mizrahi has argued that Gettier cases are misleading, since they involve a certain kind of semantic failure. In a recent paper, I criticized Mizrahi’s argument. Mizrahi has since responded. This is a response to his response.

Similar books and articles

Are Gettier Cases Misleading?Philip Atkins - 2016 - Logos and Episteme 7 (3):379-384.
Why Gettier Cases are misleading.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Logos and Episteme 7 (1):31-44.
The Gettier Non-Problem.Stephen Hetherington - 2010 - Logos and Episteme 1 (1):85-107.
Truth Analysis of the Gettier Argument.Yussif Yakubu - 2016 - Metaphilosophy 47 (3):449-466.
Know How to Be Gettiered?Ted Poston - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (3):743 - 747.
Is Evidence Knowledge?Juan Comesaña & Holly Kantin - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):447-454.
Knowledge, reasons, and causes.Gilbert H. Harman - 1970 - Journal of Philosophy 67 (21):841-855.
Is the Standard Definition of Knowledge Incomplete?Anguel S. Stefanov - 2016 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy (46):107-111.
Accidentally factive mental states.Baron Reed - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1):134–142.
A critique to the significance of Gettier counter-examples.Cao Jianbo - 2006 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (4):675-687.
Williamson on Gettier Cases and Epistemic Logic.Stewart Cohen & Juan Comesaña - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (1):15-29.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-16

Downloads
249 (#82,043)

6 months
46 (#92,504)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Philip Atkins
Temple University