Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An agent who believes a non-king to be a king does not kn... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An agent who believes a non-king to be a king does not know that the man is a king

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge requires truth (principle T)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The man is not actually a king
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gettier-style cases show that true belief can fail to constitute knowledge, so the converse—false belief blocking knowledge—is not the sole epistemic concern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reliabilist accounts (Goldman) ground knowledge in reliable belief-forming processes, not solely in the truth of the target proposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An agent whose reliable process identifies the man as performing every constitutive function of kingship may satisfy reliabilist knowledge conditions despite nominal falsity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge attributions can be context-sensitive, tracking practical and social norms rather than metaphysical facts alone (DeRose, Cohen).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the agent's belief tracks all available evidence and the social role functions as kingship, 'knowing him to be king' may be warranted under contextualism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 linked claim · 1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked
    The agent believes the man is a king, not that the man is not a king

    Related

    An agent whose reliable process identifies the man as performing every constitut...Gettier-style cases show that true belief can fail to constitute knowledge, so t...If the agent's belief tracks all available evidence and the social role function...Knowledge attributions can be context-sensitive, tracking practical and social n...
    +4 moreShow less
    Knowledge requires truth (principle T)Reliabilist accounts (Goldman) ground knowledge in reliable belief-forming proce...The agent believes the man is a king, not that the man is not a kingThe man is not actually a king

    Similar

    An agent who believes a non-king to be a king does not know that the m...100%The agent believes the man is a king, not that the man is not a king95%The agent fails to know that the man is a king93%The agent also fails to know that the agent fails to know that the man...91%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: heytesbury
    View source passageHide passage
    In the context of (T), Heytesbury discusses the casus where an agent sees a person who looks exactly like a king, but is not one. The agent can believe the man to be a king beyond any doubt and even believe himself to know that. But, by (T), he knows neither that the man is a king (because that is not true), nor that the man is not a king (because he does not believe that) ([RSS] 1494: fol. 13vb [1988b: 447]). Even though Heytesbury does not explicitly say so, it seems natural to assume that thi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit