Catherine Elgin

In “Useful False Beliefs,” Peter Klein argues that the justification required for knowledge can contain a false belief essentially. When this happens, the agent arrives at her conclusion via a chain of inference that includes a false belief. He illustrates his argument with cases that depend on apparent memory, testimony, recorded empirical evidence, and observation-based calculation. If the agent’s inferential path is close enough to a route that contains only truths, Klein maintains, her conclusion is justified. Still, he intimates, reliance on a falsehood is an epistemic defect, even if not a fatal one. All things considered, it is preferable to take the epistemic high road and rely only on truths. I will argue, however, that sometimes inferring via a falsehood is an epistemic strength. Reliance on a falsehood enables the agent to marshal epistemic resources by excluding from her reasoning irrelevant complications that would blind her to the relation between her evidence and her conclusion.

En posant avec clarté des questions de philosophie de l’esprit, d’ontologie et d’épistémologie, ce livre témoigne à la fois de l’intérêt réel de la danse comme objet philosophique et du rôle unique que peut jouer la philosophie dans une meilleure compréhension de cet art. Qu’est-ce que danser ? Que nous apprend le mouvement dansé sur la nature humaine et la relation entre le corps et l’esprit ? À quelles conditions une œuvre est-elle correctement interprétée par les danseurs et bien identifiée par les spectateurs ?

Although our theories are not precisely true, scientific realists contend that we should admit their objects into our ontology. One justification--offered by Sellars and Putnam--is that current theories belong to series that converge to ideally adequate theories. I consider the way the commitment to convergence reflects on the interpretation of lawlike claims. I argue that the distinction between lawlike and accidental generalizations depends on our cognitive interests and reflects our commitment to the direction of scientific progress. If the sciences disagree about the lawlikeness of some generalization(s), as an argument of Davidson's suggests, it follows from the interest relatively of lawlikeness that the laws of a science do not determine the essences of their objects. I conclude that this form of scientific realism provides no metaphysical support for essentialism

Davidson's token-Token identity theory is based on the indeterminacy of translation. I argue that psychological theories, Like other theories, Are underdetermined by the evidence, And that their reduction, Like other reductions, Is subject to the indeterminacy of translation. This does not invalidate reduction, But it does raise epistemic difficulties. Accepting a claim as law-Like involves uncertainty and risk. There are ideological reasons for thinking that psychophysical reduction involves risks we should not take

Knowing how to ride a bicycle, prove a theorem, tie a necktie, or play chess is, at least in part, an epistemic accomplishment. It is some sort of knowing. Abel (2012) argues that knowing how is irreducible to knowing that. No collection of knowings-that, however extensive, enables a person to play chess. I agree. He concludes that knowing how is therefore inscrutable. I argue that knowing how is akin to Aristotelian virtue - a matter of having a propensity to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason. The norm of the practice has been internalized, becoming second nature. I argue that rather than conforming to expressly stated rules, we model our behavior on exemplars - publicly available instances that manifest the features we seek to emulate. Since the exemplars are public, knowing-how is scrutable.

Testimony consists in imparting information without supplying evidence or argument to back one’s claims. To what extent does testimony convey epistemic warrant? C. J. A. Coady argues, on Davidsonian grounds, that (1) most testimony is true, hence (2) most testimony supplies warrant sufficient for knowledge. I appeal to Grice’s maxims to undermine Coady’s argument and to show that the matter is more complicated and context-sensitive than is standardly recognized. Informative exchanges take place within networks of shared, tacit assumptions that affect the scope and strength of our claims, and the level of warrant required for their responsible assertion. The maxims explain why different levels of warrant are transferred in different contexts.

Scientific realism holds that scientific representations are utterly objective. They describe the way the world is, independent of any point of view. In Scientific Representation, van Fraassen argues otherwise. If science is to afford an understanding of nature, it must be grounded in evidence. Since evidence is perspectivai, science cannot vindicate its claims using only utterly objective representations. For science to do its epistemic job, it must involve perspectivai representations. I explicate this argument and show its power