In a previous article, I argued against the widespread reluctance of philosophers to treat skeptical challenges to our a priori knowledge of necessary truths with the same seriousness as skeptical challenges to our a posteriori knowledge of contingent truths. Hamid Vahid has recently offered several reasons for thinking the unequal treatment of these two kinds of skepticism is justified, one of which is a priori skepticism’s seeming dependence upon the widely scorned kk thesis. In the present article, I defend a priori skepticism against Vahid’s criticisms.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Balaguer, M. (1998). Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——. (2013). “ Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics,” in Zalta E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2013 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/.
Beebe, J. (2010). “Constraints on Skeptical Hypotheses,” Philosophical Quarterly 60: 449–470.
——. (2011). “A Priori Skepticism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83: 583–602.
Field, H. (1980). Science without Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
——. (1989). Realism, Mathematics and Modality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Frances, B. (2005). “When a Skeptical Hypothesis is Live,” Noûs 39: 559–595.
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Klein, P. (1981). Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kraft, T. (MS). “Sceptical Scenarios Are Not Error-Possibilities.”
Kung, P. (MS). “What Makes a Good Skeptical Thought Experiment.”
Leng, M. (2010). Mathematics and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore, G. E. (1959a). Philosophical Papers. London: Allen & Unwin.
——. (1959b). “Certainty,” 227–251 in Moore (1959a).
——. (1959c). “Proof of an External World,” 127–150 in Moore (1959a).
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pritchard, D., (2007). “How to Be a Neo-Moorean,” 68–99 in Goldberg S. (ed.), Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pryor, J. (2004). “What’s Wrong With Moore’s Argument?” Philosophical Issues 14: 349–378.
Schaffer, J. (2010). “The Debasing Demon,” Analysis 70: 228–237.
Sosa, E., (1999). “Skepticism and the Internal/External Divide,” 145–157 in Greco J., and Sosa E. (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stroud, B. (1984). The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vahid, H. (2013). “Skepticism, A Priori Skepticism, and the Possibility of Error,” International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3: 235–252.
See Beebe (2010) for detailed discussion of the set of constraints skeptical hypotheses must satisfy.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 411 | 68 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 208 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 58 | 4 | 0 |
In a previous article, I argued against the widespread reluctance of philosophers to treat skeptical challenges to our a priori knowledge of necessary truths with the same seriousness as skeptical challenges to our a posteriori knowledge of contingent truths. Hamid Vahid has recently offered several reasons for thinking the unequal treatment of these two kinds of skepticism is justified, one of which is a priori skepticism’s seeming dependence upon the widely scorned kk thesis. In the present article, I defend a priori skepticism against Vahid’s criticisms.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 411 | 68 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 208 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 58 | 4 | 0 |