A Priori Knowledge and Naturalized Epistemology

Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The focus of this dissertation is the relationship between a priori knowledge and naturalized epistemology. I consider, by way of Paul Benacerraf's essay entitled "Mathematical Truth," the incompatibility between a priori knowledge and a causal theory of knowledge. The ideas in this essay are often invoked to support mathematical empiricism. I show that Benacerraf's own argument offers no conclusive reason to accept mathematical empiricism ;The argument given in Benacerraf's essay presupposes a causal theory of knowledge. A priori knowledge is incompatible with a causal theory of knowledge. We must either reject one of these or fit a priori knowledge into some other epistemic framework. I argue that we can accommodate a priori knowledge within a reliabilist framework. One matter that appears to prevent including a priori knowledge into a reliabilist framework is the subjunctive conditional invoked by Fred Dretske and Robert Nozick. What would S believe if p were false? If S would believe p anyway, then S does not know that p. This conditional is met trivially in the case of necessary truths. And necessary truths, as a class of propositions, are alleged to be knowable a priori. So it appears that a priori knowledge meets this important conditional trivially. I argue that with suitable modification, we can construct an acceptable reliabilist framework that accommodates both necessary and contingent truths. ;I provide a definition of a priori knowledge that fits into a reliabilist and "externalist" theory of knowledge. However, it could be argued that this is inadequate, that one only knows p if one has internal or "cognitive justification" for p in addition to objective justification for p. Therefore, one knows a priori only if one's objective and cognitive justification is a priori. I argue that S knows a priori if S's objective justification is a priori. More than objective justification may be required for knowledge, but no more than one's objective justification being a priori is required for that knowledge to be a priori

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Definition of a Priori Knowledge.Eugene Orin Mills - 1990 - Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
Two Conceptions of A Priori Justification.Albert Casullo - 2003 - In A Priori Justification. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press USA.
Representationalism, First-person Authority, and Second-order Knowledge.Sven Bernecker - 2011 - In Anthony Hatzimoysis (ed.), Self-Knowledge. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. pp. 33-52.
Contingent A Priori Knowledge.John Turri - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):327-344.
The Contingent A Priori: A Reply.Timothy Williamson - 1988 - Analysis 48 (4):218 - 221.
Logic: An Empirical Study of A Priori Truths.John Kearns - 1998 - The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 8:92-97.
Self-Evidence.Carl Ginet - 2010 - Logos and Episteme 1 (2):325-352.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references