Stephen Hetherington

_Yes, But How Do You Know?_ is an invitation to think philosophically through the use of sceptical ideas. Hetherington challenges our complacency and asks us to reconsider what we think we know. How much can we discover about our surroundings? What sort of beings are we? Can we trust our own reasoning? Is science all it is cracked up to be? Can we acquire knowledge of God? Are even the contents of our own minds transparent? In inviting, lucid prose, Hetherington addresses these questions and more, using scepticism to illuminate many perennial philosophical puzzles.

This chapter contains sections titled: Knowing How it is that p How‐Knowledge that p and Gradualism Degrees of Knowledge and Degrees of Belief How‐Knowledge that p and Truthmakers Knowledge that p and Gradualism Knowledge‐Gradualism's Central Concept Can there be Minimal Knowledge? Minimal Knowledge as Foundational Knowledge Knowledge‐Gradualism: Closure and Scepticism Knowledge‐Gradualism: Content Externalism and Self‐Knowledge How not to Argue for Knowledge‐Absolutism Linguistic Evidence: Igor Douven Linguistic Evidence: Jason Stanley How‐Knowledge‐how that p Knowing as Understanding?

This chapter contains sections titled: Justificationism, Broadly Understood The ‘Causally Stable World’ (CSW) Thesis Knowledge Within Causally Fluky Worlds Knowledge as Putatively Pervasive Non‐tethering Justification Linguistic Intuitions Kinds of Intension Conditional Justificationism Knowledge Within Different Possible Worlds Wholly General Justificationism A Thin or Minimal Concept of Justificationism Knowledge Within Causally Semi‐fluky Worlds Evidence and Counter‐Evidence Timothy Williamson.

This dissertation questions two central presuppositions of traditional normative epistemology. The first, , is that the epistemologist's epistemic subject is a person--that the epistemologist is discussing you. The second, , is that the epistemologist's methodology is one of investigative detachment--that in principle his investigation is impartially of each of us. ;My arguments rely on a distinction between the epistemic subject qua epistemologist and qua non-epistemologist. The former is interested in cognitively supporting epistemic principles, such as principles of justification, and he sees such support as necessary to his having justification or knowledge. The latter doesn't see himself this way. The one epistemic subject can proceed in either way, though not in the one context. I connect this distinction with recent work on epistemic levels. ;Against , I argue that the epistemologist can conceive of his epistemic subject only as an epistemic subject qua epistemologist. Whether he is considering what it takes for the epistemic subject to possess knowledge or justification, or whether he is considering what it takes to deprive the epistemic subject of knowledge or justification, he has to conceive of that epistemic subject as being, in that context, an epistemologist. I call this methodological limitation epistemological imperialism. ;Against , I argue that the epistemologist can conceive of the epistemic subject as the subject of the sceptic's argument, and hence as lacking knowledge or justification, only if the subject is a disembodied epistemologist . This metaphysical move converts the epistemological imperialism into what I call epistemological projectivism. Traditional normative epistemology requires the epistemologist to project his own mind onto his epistemic subject; his own mind is his epistemic subject