How do skeptics "know"
Dual-representation view of knowledge
Palavras-chave:
skepticism, contextualism, Knowledge, RepresentationResumo
The skepticism in the field of epistemology has never lacked advocates and attackers. In order to defend skepticism and answer the question of how skeptics can have knowledge, this article offers a two-step response to the perennial skeptical challenge. First, it strengthens Putnam’s classical “brain-in-a-vat (BIV)” scenario by adding both horizontal variation and vertical simulation-depth, thereby generating an Enhanced-BIV model that systematically defeats the three most influential anti-skeptical strategies—sensitivity, safety, and contextualism. Second, by constructing paradoxical propositions P1: I don’t know that the skeptic’s hypothesis is wrong; and P2: I have perceptual knowledge of the external world, the paper explains how skeptics can nevertheless possess knowledge by distinguishing two independent representational schemes. A representation theory of knowledge about mental states is held when adhering to proposition P1, and a representation theory of knowledge about symbolism is held when adhering to proposition P2. This Dual-Representation View (DRV) dissolves the apparent contradiction without appealing to practical stakes and thereby differs decisively from pragmatic encroachment, knowledge-first contextualism, and structural skepticism. The DRV succeed in explaining how skeptics can “know” while maintaining skeptical intuitions.
Referências
BOYD, K. “Pragmatic encroachment and epistemically responsible action”. Synthese, 193, pp. 2721-2745, 2016.
BLOME-TILLMANN, M. “Knowledge and presuppositions”. Mind, 118, 470, pp. 241-294, 2009.
BRENTANO, F. “Psychology from an empirical standpoint”. Routledge, 2012.
COHEN, S. “How to be a fallibilist”, Philosophical Perspectives, 2, pp. 91-123, 1988.
COHEN, S. “Contextualism and Skepticism”. Philosophical Issues, 10, pp. 94-107, 2000. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3050569.
COHEN, S. “Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons”. Philosophical perspectives, 13, pp. 57-89, 1999.
DEROSE, K. “Solving the skeptical problem”, Philosophical Review,104, 1, pp. 1-52, 1995.
DEROSE, K. “The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context”, Vol. 1. Oup Oxford, 2011.
DENNETT, D. C. “The Intentional Stance”. MIT Press, 1981.
FANTL, J., MCGRATH, M. “Knowledge in an Uncertain World”. Oxford University Press, 2009.
FANTL, J., MCGRATH, M. “Pragmatic encroachment”. In: The Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 558-568). Routledge, 2011.
FODOR, J. “Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind”. MIT Press. Edited by M. A. Boden, 1987.
FODOR, J. “The Language of Thought”. Harvard University Press, 1975.
FREGE, G. “On sense and reference” (P. Geach & M. Black, Eds., 3rd ed.). Blackwell, 1980. (Original work published 1892).
GOLDMAN, A. “Discrimination and perceptual knowledge”, Journal of philosophy, 73, pp. 771-791, 1976.
HAWTHORNE, J. “Knowledge and lotteries”. Oxford University Press, 2004.
HAWTHORNE, J., LASONEN-AARNIO, M. “Knowledge and Objective Chance.” (pp. 92-108). In: D. Pritchard, P. Greenough (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 2009.
NOZICK, R. “Philosophical Explanations”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
LUPER-FOY, S. “The epistemic predicament: Knowledge, Nozickian tracking, and scepticism”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 1, pp. 26-49, 1984.
PRITCHARD, D. “Epistemic Luck”. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
PRITCHARD, D. “What is this thing called knowledge?”. Routledge, 2013.
PUTNAM, H. “The meaning of ‘meaning’”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, pp. 131-193, 1975.
PUTNAM, H. “Reason, truth and history”. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
ROEBER, B. “The pragmatic encroachment debate”. Noûs, 52, 1, pp. 171-195, 2018.
RUSSELL, B. “The problems of philosophy”. OUP Oxford, 2001.
SOSA, E. “How to defeat opposition to Moore”. Philosophical perspectives, 13, pp. 141-153, 1999.
SOSA, E. “Skepticism and Contextualism”. Noûs, 34, s1, pp. 1-18, 2000.
SEARLE, J. “Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind”. Cambridge University Press, 1983.
STALNAKER, R. C. (1968). “A Theory of Conditionals.” In: N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in Logical Theory (American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, 2, pp. 98-112). Reprinted in W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, G. Pearce (eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Belief,
Decision, Chance, and Time (D. Reidel, 1981).
STANLEY, J. “Knowledge and practical interests”. Oxford University Press, 2005.
WILLIAMSON, T. “Knowledge and Its Limits”. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2000.
WINOGRAD, T. “Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design”. 1986.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. “Tractatus logico-philosophicus”. New York: Routledge, 1995.
赵海丞.. 知识论安全性原则面临的困境及其解决方案. 自然辩证法通讯 , 05, pp. 45-50, 2021. doi:10.15994/j.1000-0763.2021.05.007.
李麒麟.. 知识归属的语境敏感性. Beijing Book Co. Inc., 2021.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Kriterion

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.






