Abstract
Several philosophers have claimed that S knows p only if S' s belief is safe, where S's belief is safe iff (roughly) in nearby possible worlds in which S believes p, p is true. One widely held intuition many people have is that one cannot know that one's lottery ticket will lose a fair lottery prior to an announcement of the winner, regardless of how probable it is that it will lose. Duncan Pritchard has claimed that a chief advantage of safety theory is that it can explain the lottery intuition without succumbing to skepticism. I argue that Pritchard is wrong. If a version of safety theory can explain the lottery intuition, it will also lead to skepticism.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 95-120 |
Number of pages | 26 |
Journal | Erkenntnis |
Volume | 77 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 10 Jul 2011 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jul 2012 |
Keywords
- counterfactuals
- knowledge
- chances
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Safety, Skepticism, and Lotteries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Impacts
-
NIP Public
Luca Moretti (Coordinator), Dylan Dodd (Coordinator), Carl Edward Baker (Coordinator), Aidan McGlynn (Coordinator) & Francesco Berto (Coordinator)
Impact