Single Idea 19549

[catalogued under 13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 2. Justification Challenges / c. Knowledge closure]

Full Idea

The evidence that gives me knowledge of P (there are cookies in the jar) can exist without evidence for knowing Q (they are not fake), despite my knowing that P implies Q. So closure fails.

Gist of Idea

P may imply Q, but evidence for P doesn't imply evidence for Q, so closure fails

Source

Fred Dretske (The Case against Closure (and reply) [2005], p.33)

Book Reference

'Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd ed)', ed/tr. Steup/Turri/Sosa [Wiley Blackwell 2014], p.33


A Reaction

His more famous example is the zebra. How can P imply Q if there is no evidence for Q? Maybe 'there are cookies in the jar' does not entail they are not fake, once you disambiguate what is being said?