more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 19530

[filed under theme 11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 7. Knowledge First ]

Full Idea

A neutral state covering both perceiving and misperceiving (or remembering and misrembering) is not somehow more basic than perceiving, for what unifies the case of each neutral state is their relation to the successful state.

Gist of Idea

A neutral state of experience, between error and knowledge, is not basic; the successful state is basic

Source

Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.5-6)

Book Ref

'Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd ed)', ed/tr. Steup/Turri/Sosa [Wiley Blackwell 2014], p.5


A Reaction

An alternative is Disjunctivism, which denies the existence of a single neutral state, so that there is nothing to unite the two states, and they don't have a dependence relation. Why can't there be a prior family of appearances, some of them successful?


The 11 ideas from 'Knowledge First (and reply)'

Surely I am acquainted with physical objects, not with appearances? [Williamson]
We don't acquire evidence and then derive some knowledge, because evidence IS knowledge [Williamson]
Knowledge is prior to believing, just as doing is prior to trying to do [Williamson]
Belief explains justification, and knowledge explains belief, so knowledge explains justification [Williamson]
A neutral state of experience, between error and knowledge, is not basic; the successful state is basic [Williamson]
Internalism about mind is an obsolete view, and knowledge-first epistemology develops externalism [Williamson]
How does inferentialism distinguish the patterns of inference that are essential to meaning? [Williamson]
Internalist inferentialism has trouble explaining how meaning and reference relate [Williamson]
Inferentialist semantics relies on internal inference relations, not on external references [Williamson]
Truth-conditional referential semantics is externalist, referring to worldly items [Williamson]
Knowledge-first says your total evidence IS your knowledge [Williamson]
email your comments