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
    KNA (Knowledge Norm of Assertion) does not adequately exp... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    KNA (Knowledge Norm of Assertion) does not adequately explain why unlucky and Gettiered assertions are appropriate

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gettier cases reveal that knowledge and justified true belief come apart, so a norm requiring knowledge penalizes assertions that are epistemically identical to knowledge from the inside.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If KNA cannot distinguish first-personally between Gettiered and knowledge-level assertions, it fails as a norm governing the asserting agent's own epistemic conduct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lackey's 'selfless assertion' cases show that socially and epistemically appropriate assertions can be made without the asserter's own knowledge, undermining KNA's universality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Turri's distinction between the 'rule' and the 'norm' of assertion shows that violating a constitutive rule need not entail epistemic blameworthiness, which KNA conflates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kvanvig's observation that understanding, not knowledge, tracks the communicative success of assertion suggests KNA targets the wrong epistemic state entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.KNA's job is to specify which assertions are appropriate and which are not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williamson's defense that unlucky and Gettiered assertions are 'reasonable' relies on general observations about rationality, not on KNA itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Other norms such as JNA (Justification Norm of Assertion) can predict the appropriateness of unlucky and Gettiered assertions without appeal to independent epistemic standards
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    Gettier cases reveal that knowledge and justified true belief come apart, so a n...If KNA cannot distinguish first-personally between Gettiered and knowledge-level...KNA's job is to specify which assertions are appropriate and which are notKvanvig's observation that understanding, not knowledge, tracks the communicativ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Lackey's 'selfless assertion' cases show that socially and epistemically appropr...Other norms such as JNA (Justification Norm of Assertion) can predict the approp...Turri's distinction between the 'rule' and the 'norm' of assertion shows that vi...Williamson's defense that unlucky and Gettiered assertions are 'reasonable' reli...

    Similar

    Williamson's defense that unlucky and Gettiered assertions are 'reason...86%JNA can predict the appropriateness of unlucky and Gettiered assertion...83%A 'lucky assertion' — asserting a truth one has no reason to believe —...80%Other norms such as JNA (Justification Norm of Assertion) can predict ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: assertion
    View source passageHide passage
    Proponents of (KNA) and (TNA) tend to concede that unlucky assertions (and Gettiered assertions) are intuitively appropriate, and that lucky assertions are intuitively inappropriate. Their standard defense strategy is to invoke some distinctions that explain away their incorrect predictions. Williamson (2000: 256–257) suggests that making unlucky and Gettiered assertions is reasonable, and this is why assertions like (32) usually don’t warrant criticism. However, here the prediction that u
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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