{"title":"认识冲突与认识规则的形式","authors":"Aleks Knoks","doi":"10.1111/papq.12453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While such epistemic rules as ‘If you perceive that , you ought to believe that ’ and ‘If you have outstanding testimony that , you ought to believe that ’ seem to be getting at important truths, it is easy to think of cases in which they come into conflict. To avoid classifying such cases as dilemmas, one can hold either that epistemic rules have built‐in unless‐clauses listing the circumstances under which they don't apply or, alternatively, that epistemic rules are contributory. This paper explores both responses from a formal perspective, drawing on a simple defeasible logic framework.","PeriodicalId":47097,"journal":{"name":"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic Conflicts and the Form of Epistemic Rules\",\"authors\":\"Aleks Knoks\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papq.12453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While such epistemic rules as ‘If you perceive that , you ought to believe that ’ and ‘If you have outstanding testimony that , you ought to believe that ’ seem to be getting at important truths, it is easy to think of cases in which they come into conflict. To avoid classifying such cases as dilemmas, one can hold either that epistemic rules have built‐in unless‐clauses listing the circumstances under which they don't apply or, alternatively, that epistemic rules are contributory. This paper explores both responses from a formal perspective, drawing on a simple defeasible logic framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12453\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12453","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Epistemic Conflicts and the Form of Epistemic Rules
While such epistemic rules as ‘If you perceive that , you ought to believe that ’ and ‘If you have outstanding testimony that , you ought to believe that ’ seem to be getting at important truths, it is easy to think of cases in which they come into conflict. To avoid classifying such cases as dilemmas, one can hold either that epistemic rules have built‐in unless‐clauses listing the circumstances under which they don't apply or, alternatively, that epistemic rules are contributory. This paper explores both responses from a formal perspective, drawing on a simple defeasible logic framework.
期刊介绍:
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly is a journal of general philosophy in the analytic tradition, publishing original articles from all areas of philosophy including metaphysics, epistemology, moral philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, aesthetics and history of philosophy. Periodically, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly publishes special editions devoted to the investigation of important topics in a particular field.