The Ignorance Norm and Paradoxical Assertions

Elise Woodard
{"title":"The Ignorance Norm and Paradoxical Assertions","authors":"Elise Woodard","doi":"10.5840/philtopics202149227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Can agents rationally inquire into things that they know? On my view, the answer is yes. Call this view the Compatibility Thesis. One challenge to this thesis is to explain why assertions like \"I know that p, but I'm wondering whether p\" sound odd, if not Moore-Paradoxical. In response to this challenge, I argue that we can reject one or both premises that give rise to it. First, we can deny that inquiry requires interrogative attitudes. Second, we can deny the ignorance norm, on which agents are not permitted to both know and have interrogative attitudes, such as wondering. I argue that there are compelling reasons to deny the former and reasons to question the latter. Both options pave the way for further work on further inquiry.","PeriodicalId":230797,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Topics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Topics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics202149227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Can agents rationally inquire into things that they know? On my view, the answer is yes. Call this view the Compatibility Thesis. One challenge to this thesis is to explain why assertions like "I know that p, but I'm wondering whether p" sound odd, if not Moore-Paradoxical. In response to this challenge, I argue that we can reject one or both premises that give rise to it. First, we can deny that inquiry requires interrogative attitudes. Second, we can deny the ignorance norm, on which agents are not permitted to both know and have interrogative attitudes, such as wondering. I argue that there are compelling reasons to deny the former and reasons to question the latter. Both options pave the way for further work on further inquiry.
无知规范与自相矛盾的断言
摘要:智能体是否能够理性地探究已知的事物?我认为,答案是肯定的。把这个观点称为兼容性命题。这篇论文的一个挑战是解释为什么像“我知道p,但我想知道p是否”这样的断言听起来很奇怪,如果不是摩尔悖论的话。为了回应这一挑战,我认为我们可以拒绝其中一个或两个导致这一挑战的前提。首先,我们可以否认调查需要质疑的态度。其次,我们可以否认无知规范,在这种规范下,代理人不允许既知道又有疑问的态度,比如好奇。我认为有令人信服的理由否定前者,也有理由质疑后者。这两种选择都为进一步的调查工作铺平了道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信