Fallibilism and Multiple Paths to Knowledge

Oxford Studies in Epistemology 5:97-144 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This chapter argues that epistemologists should replace a “standard alternatives” picture of knowledge, assumed by many fallibilist theories of knowledge, with a new “multipath” picture of knowledge. The chapter first identifies a problem for the standard picture: fallibilists working with this picture cannot maintain even the most uncontroversial epistemic closure principles without making extreme assumptions about the ability of humans to know empirical truths without empirical investigation. The chapter then shows how the multipath picture, motivated by independent arguments, saves fallibilism from this problem. The multipath picture is based on taking seriously the idea that there can be multiple paths to knowing some propositions about the world. An overlooked consequence of fallibilism is that these multiple paths to knowledge may involve ruling out different sets of alternatives, which should be represented in a fallibilist picture of knowledge. The chapter concludes by considering inductive knowledge and strong epistemic closure from this multipath perspective.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Fallibilism and Multiple Paths to Knowledge.Wesley H. Holliday - 2015 - In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne, Oxford Studies in Epistemology: Volume 5. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK. pp. 97-144.
Multi-Path vs. Single-Path Replies to Skepticism.Wen-Fang Wang - 2021 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 51 (2):383-412.
Fallibilism, Contextualism and Second‐Order Skepticism.Alexander S. Harper - 2010 - Philosophical Investigations 33 (4):339-359.
Knowledge-closure and skepticism.Marian David & Ted A. Warfield - 2008 - In Quentin Smith, Epistemology: new essays. New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press. pp. 137-188.
Las paradojas escépticas.Santiago Echeverri - forthcoming - In Juan Carlos Villacrés & Estefanía C. Apolo, Introducción a la Filosofía Analítica. Universidad Central del Ecuador, Fundación Filosófica.
Sensitivity and Closure.Sherrilyn Roush - 2012 - In Kelly Becker & Tim Black, The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 242-268.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-12

Downloads
287 (#149,535)

6 months
31 (#296,678)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Wesley H. Holliday
University of California, Berkeley

Citations of this work

Belief as Question‐Sensitive.Seth Yalcin - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (1):23-47.
The Fundamental Problem of Logical Omniscience.Peter Hawke, Aybüke Özgün & Francesco Berto - 2020 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 49 (4):727-766.
How to be an Infallibilist.Julien Dutant - 2016 - Philosophical Issues 26 (1):148-171.

View all 21 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)?Crispin Wright - 2004 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78 (1):167–212.

Add more references