The causal theory of knowledge revisited: An interventionist approach

被引:2
作者
de Grefte, Job [1 ]
Gebharter, Alexander [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Fac Philosophy, Oude Boterinestraat 52, NL-9712 GL Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Ludwig Maximilian Univ Munich, Munich Ctr Math Philosophy, Geschwister Scholl Pl 1, D-80539 Munich, Germany
关键词
causal theory of knowledge; causation; epistemic luck; interventionism; knowledge;
D O I
10.1111/rati.12304
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Goldman proposed that a subject s knows p if and only if p is appropriately causally connected to s's believing p. He later on abandoned this theory. The main objection to the theory is that the causal connection required by Goldman is compatible with certain problematic forms of luck. In this paper we argue that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge can overcome the luck problem if causation is understood along interventionist lines. We also show that the modified theory leads to the correct results in contexts involving other prominent forms of epistemic luck and compare it with other accounts on the market.
引用
收藏
页码:193 / 202
页数:10
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2014, P UAI WORKSH CAUS IN
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, CAUSALITY
[3]   Variation of information as a measure of one-to-one causal specificity [J].
Bourrat, Pierrick .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2019, 9 (01)
[4]   Knowledge-How and Epistemic Luck [J].
Carter, J. Adam ;
Pritchard, Duncan .
NOUS, 2015, 49 (03) :440-453
[5]   Epistemic justification and epistemic luck [J].
de Grefte, Job .
SYNTHESE, 2018, 195 (09) :3821-3836
[6]   IS EPISTEMIC LUCK COMPATIBLE WITH KNOWLEDGE [J].
ENGEL, M .
SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 1992, 30 (02) :59-75
[7]  
Gebharter A., 2017, Causal Nets, Interventionism, and Mechanisms
[8]  
Gebharter A., 2021, BRIT J PHILOS SCI, DOI [10.1086/714818, DOI 10.1086/714818]
[9]  
Gettier Edmund L., 1963, Analysis, V23, P121, DOI [10.2307/3326922, 10.1093/analys/23.6.121, 10.1093]
[10]   DISCRIMINATION AND PERCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE [J].
GOLDMAN, AI .
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 1976, 73 (20) :771-791