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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Skeptical arguments that rely on the KK thesis can be disarmed by rejecting the KK thesis

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some skeptical arguments entail the KK thesis as a necessary component
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The KK thesis (if you know something, you know that you know it) has been given reason to be rejected following Williamson
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a premise of an argument is false, the argument is disarmed
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williamson's margin-for-error argument demonstrates that knowledge does not iterate: one can know P without knowing that one knows P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Skeptical arguments employing luminosity assumptions (e.g., Cartesian demon scenarios) require the agent to know the limits of their own knowledge, presupposing KK.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Once KK is rejected, the skeptic cannot establish that the agent's failure to know they know constitutes a failure of knowledge itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Externalist epistemologies (Reliabilism, Safety-based accounts) ground knowledge in world-tracking processes, not in introspective access to one's own epistemic states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If knowledge requires only reliable belief-formation rather than higher-order awareness, the skeptic's demand that agents verify their knowing is an illegitimate internalist import.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disarming KK-reliant skepticism by adopting externalism is thus independently motivated by the broader success of externalist theories in handling Gettier cases and perceptual knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42