In this paper, we argue that Williamson’s arguments against luminosity and the KK principle do not work, at least in a scientifc context. Both of these arguments are based on the presence of a so-called “bufer zone” between situations in which one is in a position to know p and situations in which one is in a position to know ¬p. In those positions belonging to the bufer zone ¬p holds, but one is not in a position to know ¬p. The presence of this bufer zone triggers two types of sorites arguments. We show that this kind of argument does not hold in a scientifc context, where the bufer zone is controlled by a quantitative measurement of the experimental error.

Williamson On the Margins of Knowledge: A Criticism

vincenzo fano
2020

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that Williamson’s arguments against luminosity and the KK principle do not work, at least in a scientifc context. Both of these arguments are based on the presence of a so-called “bufer zone” between situations in which one is in a position to know p and situations in which one is in a position to know ¬p. In those positions belonging to the bufer zone ¬p holds, but one is not in a position to know ¬p. The presence of this bufer zone triggers two types of sorites arguments. We show that this kind of argument does not hold in a scientifc context, where the bufer zone is controlled by a quantitative measurement of the experimental error.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
WILLIAMSON-MARGINS.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 595.21 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
595.21 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2680917
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact