20 ideas
17292 | Avoid 'in virtue of' for grounding, since it might imply a reflexive relation such as identity [Audi,P] |
17295 | Ground relations depend on the properties [Audi,P] |
17297 | A ball's being spherical non-causally determines its power to roll [Audi,P] |
17302 | Ground is irreflexive, asymmetric, transitive, non-monotonic etc. [Audi,P] |
17303 | The best critique of grounding says it is actually either identity or elimination [Audi,P] |
17294 | Grounding is a singular relation between worldly facts [Audi,P] |
17300 | If grounding relates facts, properties must be included, as well as objects [Audi,P] |
17296 | We must accept grounding, for our important explanations [Audi,P] |
17301 | Reduction is just identity, so the two things are the same fact, so reduction isn't grounding [Audi,P] |
17293 | Worldly facts are obtaining states of affairs, with constituents; conceptual facts also depend on concepts [Audi,P] |
19558 | Our own intuitions about whether we know tend to vacillate [Cohen,S] |
19561 | We shouldn't jump too quickly to a contextualist account of claims to know [Cohen,S] |
19563 | The context sensitivity of knowledge derives from its justification [Cohen,S] |
19560 | Contextualism is good because it allows knowledge, but bad because 'knowing' is less valued [Cohen,S] |
12893 | Contextualism says sceptical arguments are true, relative to their strict context [Cohen,S] |
12896 | Knowledge is context-sensitive, because justification is [Cohen,S] |
12894 | There aren't invariant high standards for knowledge, because even those can be raised [Cohen,S] |
19559 | Contextualists slightly concede scepticism, but only in extremely strict contexts [Cohen,S] |
17298 | Two things being identical (like water and H2O) is not an explanation [Audi,P] |
17299 | There are plenty of examples of non-causal explanation [Audi,P] |