Knowing the Answer to a Loaded Question
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20142584 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (0000-0002-5023-3449, Aarhus University, corresponding author), Asbjørn Steglich‐petersen (Aarhus University) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 81 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 97-125 |
| Publication date | 2015-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Theoria (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/theo.12045 |
| OpenAlex | W1868019375 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 31 |
Many epistemologists have been attracted to the view that knowledge‐ wh can be reduced to knowledge‐ that . An important challenge to this, presented by J onathan S chaffer, is the problem of “convergent knowledge”: reductive accounts imply that any two knowledge‐ wh ascriptions with identical true answers to the questions embedded in their wh ‐clauses are materially equivalent, but according to S chaffer, there are counterexamples to this equivalence. Parallel to this, S chaffer has presented a very similar argument against binary accounts of knowledge, and thereby in favour of his alternative contrastive account, relying on similar examples of apparently inequivalent knowledge ascriptions, which binary accounts treat as equivalent. In this article, I develop a unified diagnosis and solution to these problems for the reductive and binary accounts, based on a general theory of knowledge ascriptions that embed presuppositional expressions. All of S chaffer's apparent counterexamples embed presuppositional expressions, and once the effect of these is taken into account, it becomes apparent that the counterexamples depend on an illicit equivocation of contexts. Since epistemologists often rely on knowledge ascriptions that embed presuppositional expressions, the general theory of them presented here will have ramifications beyond defusing S chaffer's argument
Argument (complex analysis) · Arithmetic · Binary number · Cognitive science · Counterexample · Discrete mathematics · Doxastic logic · Epistemology · Equivalence (formal languages) · Equivocation · Mathematical economics · Philosophy of science · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Psychology
Iii.—on Referring
Scorekeeping in a language game
Knowing How
Would You Believe It? The King of France is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions)
Epistemic Operators
Ii.—on Denoting
Logic and Conversation
The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces
Positive tumour CD47 expression is an independent prognostic factor for recurrence in resected non-small cell lung cancer
Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs
Presupposition and Linguistic Context
Identifying reference and truth‐values
Pragmatics
Knowing whether A or B
Contrastive Causation
Knowledge‐ wh and the Problem of Convergent Knowledge
Knowing the Answer
Knowing the Answer Redux
What Mary Did Yesterday
Against the Contrastive Account of Singular Causation
The Contrast-sensitivity of Knowledge Ascriptions
Alternative Questions and Knowledge Attributions
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |