{"title":"Rational Inconsistency Against Non-skeptical Infallibilism","authors":"Nathan Lauffer","doi":"10.1007/s12136-025-00646-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent epistemological literature features compelling and novel arguments for thinking that an agent can rationally believe each member of a set of propositions while knowing that one of the members is false. Perhaps more provocatively, these proponents of “Rational Inconsistency,” as it were, claim that it’s also possible to <i>know</i> each true member of the set while knowing that one of the members is false. Call this “Knowledgeable Inconsistency.” In this article, I explain why, if Knowledgeable Inconsistency is true, then, on pain of an absurd implication about how confirmation works, we should reject non-skeptical Infallibilism about knowledge. For that same reason, the recent proponents of Rational Inconsistency should also reject non-skeptical Infallibilism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":"41 1","pages":"151 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-025-00646-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recent epistemological literature features compelling and novel arguments for thinking that an agent can rationally believe each member of a set of propositions while knowing that one of the members is false. Perhaps more provocatively, these proponents of “Rational Inconsistency,” as it were, claim that it’s also possible to know each true member of the set while knowing that one of the members is false. Call this “Knowledgeable Inconsistency.” In this article, I explain why, if Knowledgeable Inconsistency is true, then, on pain of an absurd implication about how confirmation works, we should reject non-skeptical Infallibilism about knowledge. For that same reason, the recent proponents of Rational Inconsistency should also reject non-skeptical Infallibilism.
期刊介绍：
Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
