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
    Ruling out not knowing φ means knowing that one knows φ, ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The skeptical requirement that one rule out all alternatives entails the KK thesis

    Ruling out not knowing φ means knowing that one knows φ, which is KKφ

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    One alternative to knowing φ is not knowing φThe skeptic requires that to know φ, one must rule out all alternatives to knowi...The skeptical requirement that one rule out all alternatives entails the KK thes...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    One alternative to knowing φ is not knowing φ91%Γ ⊢ φ (Γ proves φ)77%Veracity states that if an agent knows φ then φ is true77%The skeptic requires that to know φ, one must rule out all alternative...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: formal-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    What’s the philosophical payoff if we join Williamson in rejecting KK on these grounds? Skeptical arguments that rely on KK might be disarmed. For example, a skeptic might argue that to know something, you must be able to rule out any competing alternatives. For example, to know the external world is real, you must be able to rule out the possibility that you are being deceived by Descartes’ demon (Stroud 1984). But then you must also be able to rule out the possibility that you don’t know the e

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective