感应，连接介绍和安全

IF 0.8 2区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-07-19 DOI:10.1017/S0031819123000190

Bin Zhao

{"title":"感应，连接介绍和安全","authors":"Bin Zhao","doi":"10.1017/S0031819123000190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Depending on whether we are somewhat tolerant of nearby error-possibilities or not, the safety condition on knowledge is open to a strong reading and a weak reading. In this paper, it is argued that induction and conjunction introduction constitute two horns of a dilemma for the safety account of knowledge. If we opt for the strong reading, then the safety account fails to account for inductive knowledge. In contrast, if we opt for the weak reading, then the safety account fails to accommodate knowledge obtained via the method of conjunction introduction.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"98 1","pages":"477 - 483"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Induction, Conjunction Introduction, and Safety\",\"authors\":\"Bin Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0031819123000190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Depending on whether we are somewhat tolerant of nearby error-possibilities or not, the safety condition on knowledge is open to a strong reading and a weak reading. In this paper, it is argued that induction and conjunction introduction constitute two horns of a dilemma for the safety account of knowledge. If we opt for the strong reading, then the safety account fails to account for inductive knowledge. In contrast, if we opt for the weak reading, then the safety account fails to accommodate knowledge obtained via the method of conjunction introduction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"477 - 483\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819123000190\",\"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":"PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819123000190","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要知识的安全条件可以分为强读和弱读，这取决于我们是否对邻近的错误可能性具有一定的容忍度。本文认为归纳法和关联引入法构成了知识安全解释困境的两个角。如果我们选择强阅读，那么安全解释就不能解释归纳知识。相反，如果我们选择弱阅读，则安全帐户无法容纳通过连接介绍方法获得的知识。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Induction, Conjunction Introduction, and Safety

Abstract Depending on whether we are somewhat tolerant of nearby error-possibilities or not, the safety condition on knowledge is open to a strong reading and a weak reading. In this paper, it is argued that induction and conjunction introduction constitute two horns of a dilemma for the safety account of knowledge. If we opt for the strong reading, then the safety account fails to account for inductive knowledge. In contrast, if we opt for the weak reading, then the safety account fails to accommodate knowledge obtained via the method of conjunction introduction.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Philosophy is the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, which was founded in 1925 to build bridges between specialist philosophers and a wider educated public. The journal continues to fulfil a dual role: it is one of the leading academic journals of philosophy, but it also serves the philosophical interests of specialists in other fields (law, language, literature and the arts, medicine, politics, religion, science, education, psychology, history) and those of the informed general reader. Contributors are required to avoid needless technicality of language and presentation. The institutional subscription includes two supplements.