Safety and Future Dependence

Croatian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the safety account of knowledge, one knows that p only if one’s belief in p could not easily have been false. In the literature, most objections to the safety account rely on intuition of knowledge that could be easily denied by the safety theorists. In this paper, an objection to the safety account which does not make use of such intuition is raised. It is argued that either there are instances of unsafe knowledge or the safety account has an implausible implication that one’s epistemic status might depend on what happens in the future.

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

Is Knowledge Safe?Peter Baumann - 2008 - American Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):19 - 30.
Epistemic Closure, Necessary Truths, and Safety.Bin Zhao - 2022 - American Philosophical Quarterly 59 (4):391-401.
Better virtuous than safe.Haicheng Zhao - 2019 - Synthese 198 (8):6969-6991.
Assertion and safety.Charlie Pelling - 2013 - Synthese 190 (17):3777-3796.
Knowledge without safety.Haicheng Zhao - 2020 - Synthese 197 (8):3261-3278.
The Safety Condition for Knowledge.Dani Rabinowitz - 2011 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sensitivity, Safety, and Epistemic Closure.Bin Zhao - 2022 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 30 (1):56-71.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-06-07

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?

Author's Profile

Bin Zhao
Peking University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references