Roy Sorensen

Since 1970, a United States prosecutor can prove perjury without specifying which statement is perjurious. A bold prosecutor could concede ignorance of which statement is false. A bolder prosecutor could further concede that the witness himself does not know. The boldest prosecutor could concede there is no specific lie. Instead of there being a statement that is intrinsically perjurious, the perjury is relational. Just as two statements can be inconsistent without either being inconsistent, two statements can be perjurious without either being perjurious. These consequences are reconciled with the generalisation that all perjury involves lying. Corollaries about culpability are drawn from the phenomenon of nonspecific perjury. The reasoning is generalised to other forms of illegal lying.

Epistemologists have profited from studies of the ways in which ‘know’ is ambiguous. We can also profit by studying the ways in which ‘know’ is vague. After classifying sources of vagueness for ‘know,’ I spend the second section examining theories of vagueness. With the exception of the theory that vague predicates are incoherent, which I try to refute, we need not take a stand on a particular theory to show that the vagueness of knowledge has substantive epistemological implications. The third section supports the thesis through a survey of ways in which appeals to vagueness can be applied to the field's issues. First, I show how higher order vagueness is evidence against the KK thesis, the incorrigibility of sense data, and the completability of epistemology. An interesting resemblance between infinity and vagueness provides the point of departure for the next type of application. For this resemblance suggests a new way of handling apparently infinite belief structures. The approach is illustrated with an analysis of common knowledge. The third type of application concerns the ways in which disguised sorites creep into our thinking about knowledge. In addition to brief illustrations concerning naive holism, question begging, and an objection to incorrigibilism, I provide more detailed illustrations involving Jonathan Adler's sceptical appeal to epistemic universalizability, the prediction paradox, and William Lycan's objection to Gilbert Harman's social knowledge cases. I conclude with some general remarks on the lessons to be learned from the vagueness of knowledge.

Tired of being weak-willed? Do you want to end procrastination and back-sliding? Are you envious of those paragons of self-control who always do what they consider best? Thanks to a breakthrough in therapeutic philosophy, you too can now close the gap between what you think you ought to do and what you actually do. Just send $1000 to the address below and you will never again succumb to temptation. This is a MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. The first time you do something that you know to be irrational, your money will be refunded, no questions asked.

Ludwig Wittgenstein once exclaimed that the most important philosophical discovery made by G.E. Moore was of the oddity of sentences like 'It is raining but I do not believe it'. This dissertation can be viewed as a partial vindication of Wittgenstein's enthusiasm. ;However, my direct target is the prediction paradox. In the first chapter, the history of the prediction paradox is covered in detail. With the help of some new variations of the prediction paradox, I then argue in Chapter II that the paradox has not yet been solved. Chapter III contains my solution to Moore's problem. My concept of an epistemic blindspot emerges from this chapter and is used to establish new kinds of limits on knowledge in Chapter IV. In the following chapter I argue that the prediction paradox is a symptom of our unfamiliarity with these limits. Thus the prediction paradox is part of a general epistemological problem rather than an isolated logical problem. I try to make this claim more plausible in Chapter VI by applying the lessons learned about these new limits for epistemology to the more traditional philosophical problems associated with predictive determinism. Along the way I show that disagreement amongst ideal thinkers is possible. I use this possibility to argue against emulation theories of moral problem solving, like ideal observer theories, conventionalism, and the Rawlsian appeal to the original position. I conclude the chapter by using epistemic blindspots as counterexamples to predictive determinism and retrodictive determinism. Having shown how pre-decisional blindspots have been illicitly employed to support the thesis that decisions are uncaused in Chapter VI, I argue in Chapter VII that post-decisional blindspots are involved in Newcomb's problem. A solution to this problem is then proposed. In my concluding remarks I provide a general characterization of my approach to the philosophical problems that have concerned me in this dissertation and a brief summation of its results

This enjoyable book presents a potpourri of paradoxes with the purpose of showing how they connect to serious philosophical issues. The main paradoxes are Zeno's, the sorites, Newcomb's problem, the paradoxes of confirmation, the surprise examination, and the paradoxes of self-reference. A final chapter defends the assumption that contradictions are unacceptable and an appendix throws in sixteen minor paradoxes. Along the way, R. M. Sainsbury peppers the reader with helpful queries and provocative asides.