Semantic blindness and error theorizing for the ambiguity theory of ‘knows’

Analysis 78 (2):275-284 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The ambiguity theory of ‘knows’ is the view that ‘knows’ and its cognates have more than one propositional sense – i.e. more than one sense that can properly be used in ‘knows that’ etc. constructions. Given that most of us are ‘intuitive invariantists’ – i.e. most of us initially have the intuition that ‘knows’ is univocal – defenders of the ambiguity theory need to offer an explanation for the semantic blindness present if ‘knows’ is in fact ambiguous. This paper is an attempt to offer such an explanation. Section 1 contains a general argument for the ubiquity of semantic blindness for ambiguous words; the upshot being that semantic blindness for the ambiguity of ‘knows’ is thus unsurprising. Section 2 offers more specific arguments for why ‘knows’ is the type of ambiguous word that we’re very unlikely to quickly recognize is ambiguous.

Similar books and articles

Contextualism, invariantism and semantic blindness.Martin Montminy - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):639-657.
Relativism, sceptical paradox, and semantic blindness.Dirk Kindermann - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):585-603.
Ambiguity in Architecture.Christoph Baumberger - 2009 - In G. Ernst, O. Scholz & J. Steinbrenner (eds.), Nelson Goodman: From Logic to Art. Ontos. pp. 293--319.
The Ambiguity Theory of “Knows”.Mark Satta - 2018 - Acta Analytica 33 (1):69-83.
Truth and The Ambiguity of Negation.Teresa Marques - 2010 - In Erich Rast & Luiz Carlos Baptista (eds.), Meaning and Context. Peter Lang. pp. 2--235.
Two Types of Semantic Ambiguity.Laurie Jeanne Shrage - 1983 - Dissertation, University of California, San Diego
Epistemic Contextualism, Semantic Blindness and Content Unawareness.André J. Abath - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):593 - 597.
Methodological Reflections on Two Kripkean Strategies.Murali Ramachandran - 1995 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:67 - 81.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-08-10

Downloads
343 (#56,652)

6 months
91 (#45,921)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mark Satta
Wayne State University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
The moral problem.Michael Smith - 1994 - Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
Peer disagreement and higher order evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2011 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 183--217.

View all 38 references / Add more references