Abstract
In Part I, this paper argues that Duncan Pritchard's version of safety is incompatible with closure. In Part II I argue for an alternative theory that fares much better. Part I begins by reviewing past arguments concerning safety's problems with closure. After discussing both their inadequacies and Pritchard's response to them, I offer a modified criticism immune to previous shortcomings. I conclude Part I by explaining how Pritchard's own arguments make my critique possible. Part II argues that most modal theories of knowledge will run into problems similar to those found in Pritchard's Anti-Luck Virtue Epistemology. I hence offer my own theory grounded in risk assessment and explain why and how it does much better.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 493-515 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Journal | Logos and Episteme |
Volume | 8 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Dec 1 2017 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Barns
- Closure
- Risk. Edmund Gettier
- Safety
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy