Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:39:29.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Knowledge and Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

C. S. Jenkins*
Affiliation:
University of St. Andrews Edgecliffe, The Scores St. Andrews, Fife Scotland KY16 9AL

Extract

Craig (1990) casts doubt upon the project of trying to give the traditional sort of necessary and sufficient conditions for A knows that p. He interprets the inadequacy of existing analyses of knowledge as evidence that our concept of knowledge is complex and diffuse, and concludes that we should aim to understand it by thinking about the rôle the concept plays in our lives, rather than by trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of knowledge ascriptions.

There is surely something right about Craig's view: we are unlikely to succeed in any attempt to analyse away the intricacies in our concept of knowledge. We cannot realistically hope to uncover a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for A knows that p which are in all cases either clearly satisfied or clearly not satisfied. Nor, I suspect, is it possible to offer necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge which are widely accepted as being more securely understood than knowledge itself.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, D. 1973. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2000. ‘Externalism and Armchair Knowledge.’ In New Essays on the A Priori, Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 384414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 1970. ‘Epistemic Operators.Journal of Philosophy 67 1007–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, A. 1981. Forms of Explanation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gettier, E. 1963. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?Analysis 23 121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alan, Goldman. 1984. ‘An Explanatory Analysis of Knowledge.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 21101-8.Google Scholar
Alan, Goldman. 1988. Empirical Knowledge. Berkeley: University of.California Press.Google Scholar
Alvin, Goldman. 1967. ‘A Causal Theory of Knowing.Journal of Philosophy 64 355–72.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. 2005. ‘Knowledge of ArithmeticBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 727747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, P. 1990. ‘Contrastive Explanation.’ In Explanation and its Limits, Knowles, D. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Explanation (1993), D.-H. Ruben, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G.E. 1959. ‘Proof of an External World.’ In his Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and.Unwin.Google Scholar
Neta, R. 2002. 's Knows That P.’ Noüs 36 663–81.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, M. and Kushner, D. 1987. ‘Explanation, Independence and Realism in Mathematics.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieber, S. 1998. ‘Skepticism and Contrastive Explanation.Noûs 32 189204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandborg, D. 1998. ‘Mathematical Explanation and the Theory of Why-Questions.British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 603–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, M. 1978. ‘Mathematical Explanation.Philosophical Studies 34 135–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge And Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar