Premium
Wright Back to Dretske, or Why You Might as Well Deny Knowledge Closure
Author(s) -
AlspectorKelly Marc
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
philosophy and phenomenological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1933-1592
pISSN - 0031-8205
DOI - 10.1111/phpr.12150
Subject(s) - wright , warrant , closure (psychology) , premise , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , philosophy , transmission (telecommunications) , law , political science , history , computer science , medicine , economics , art history , financial economics , telecommunications
Fred Dretske notoriously claimed that knowledge closure sometimes fails. Crispin Wright agrees that warrant does not transmit in the relevant cases, but only because the agent must already be warranted in believing the conclusion in order to acquire her warrant for the premise. So the agent ends up being warranted in believing, and so knowing, the conclusion in those cases too: closure is preserved. Wright's argument requires that the conclusion's having to be warranted beforehand explains transmission failure. I argue that it doesn't, and that the correct explanation does not imply that the agent will end up warranted in believing the conclusion when transmission fails. Those who agree that transmission does fail in those cases, therefore, might as well follow Dretske in denying knowledge closure too.