Day 7: Counterfactual Analyses of Knowledge

•      Assign Essay 1

•      Review

•      Robert Nozick’s Tracking Analysis of Knowledge (simple version)

•      Objections and Revisions

•      Can Knowledge be Analyzed?

•      Read Kornblith’s “Knowledge Needs no Justification”; start working on your essay

Robert Nozick’s Tracking Analysis

•      Simple version: S knows that p iff

   (i) p is true, and

   (ii) S believes that p

   (iii) if p were not true, S would not believe that p

   (iv) if p is (were) true, S believes (would believe) p

•      How are Gettier problems dealt with?

•      Can this handle knowledge in math?

Objections and Revisions

•      Objections to the simple version

•      Nozick’s refined version:

   (iii) if p weren’t true and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether (or not) p, then S wouldn’t believe, via M, that p.

   (iv) if p were true and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether (or not) p, then S would believe, via M, that p.

Some Strengths

•      Deals with Gettier problems

•      Appears to handle knowledge in empirical and mathematical (or other abstract) domains in a more unified, elegant way than, say, causal theory

Some Concerns

•      There may still be some counter examples to the revised conditions

•      Counterfactuals and subjunctives are difficult to analyse

•      Difficult to get clear on what a method is and how broadly to construe it

–  the generality problem

Can Knowledge be Analyzed?

•      Wittgenstein on family resemblance

–  “game” and other such-like terms

•      What’s to be said for analysis in terms of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions?

•      Might knowledge be primitive?  A quick discussion of Timothy Williamson (Knowledge and its Limits, 2000)