Basic Knowledge and Contextualist “E = K”

Abstract

Timothy Williamson (2000) makes a strong prima facie case for the identification of a subject's total evidence with the subject's total knowledge (E = K). However, as Brian Weatherson (Ms) has observed, there are intuitively problematic consequences of E = K. In this article, I'll offer a contextualist implementation of E = K that provides the resources to respond to Weatherson's argument; the result will be a novel approach to knowledge and evidence that is suggestive of an unexplored contextualist approach to basic knowledge.

Common Sense and Evidence: Some Neglected Arguments in Favour of E=K

“…If S's reason (for something X) is that p, then S knows that p, and if S's reasons (for X) are that p and that q and so on, then S knows that p and S knows that q and so on. (Unger, 1975, p. 206) 6 5 A non-exhaustive list of opponents to E=K (or the associated view about reasons for belief ) includes: Arnold (2013), Brueckner (2005, Comesaña and Kantin (2010), Conee and Feldman (2008), Dodd (2007), Dougherty and Rysiew (2013), Dunn (2014), Goldman (2009), Harman (2002, Hawthorne (2005), Hughes (2014), Ichikawa (2013), Jackson (2012), Joyce (2004), Kelly (2008), Littlejohn (2011aLittlejohn ( , 2011bLittlejohn ( , 2012, Logins (2013), McGlynn (2014, Mitova (2015), Neta (2008), Rizzieri (2011), Schiffer (2009), Schroeder (2011), Silins (2005, Turri (2009) andWhitcomb (2008). As far as I can see only the objections from Brueckner (2005), Conee and Feldman (2008), Goldman (2009), Hughes (2014, Joyce (2004), Littlejohn (2011bLittlejohn ( , 2012 and McGlynn (2014) have (at least partly) focused on arguments that have been proposed in favour of E=K, instead of merely pointing to some allegedly implausible consequences of E=K.…”

“…A non‐exhaustive list of opponents to E=K (or the associated view about reasons for belief) includes: Arnold (), Brueckner (), Comesaña and Kantin (), Conee and Feldman (), Dodd (), Dougherty and Rysiew (), Dunn (), Goldman (), Harman (), Hawthorne (), Hughes (), Ichikawa (), Jackson (), Joyce (), Kelly (), Littlejohn (, , ), Logins (), McGlynn (), Mitova (), Neta (), Rizzieri (), Schiffer (), Schroeder (), Silins (), Turri () and Whitcomb (). As far as I can see only the objections from Brueckner (), Conee and Feldman (), Goldman (), Hughes (), Joyce (), Littlejohn (, ) and McGlynn () have (at least partly) focused on arguments that have been proposed in favour of E=K, instead of merely pointing to some allegedly implausible consequences of E=K.…”

Basic Knowledge First

“…32 See Williamson (2000: 201), Littlejohn (2012: 101;. 33 The ideas of this section are developed further in Ichikawa (2013) and Ichikawa (2017: Ch. 3 I am inclined to agree that there is a sense in which a belief is proper just in case it is knowledge.…”

“… 29 Weatherson (2009), discussed in Ichikawa (2013). The present discussion rehearses some of my thoughts from that paper. …”

DAST-Mediated Fluorination of 1-[4-Thio-β-d-arabinofuranosyl]uracil: Investigation of Thiolane vs Thietane Formation and Stereoselective Synthesis of 4′-ThioFAC

“…Nucleoside analogues have been recognized as an important class of biologically active compounds, especially as antiviral and antitumor agents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Among their sugar-modified analogues, 4′-thionucleosides, in which the oxygen atom in the furanose ring is replaced with a sulfur atom, have attracted much attention since the discovery of the antiviral and antitumor activities of 4′-thiothymidine ( 1 ) and 2′-deoxy-4′-thiocytidine ( 2 ) (Figure 1 ). 22 23 24 25 26…”