No Luck in the Distance: A Reply to Freitag

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Wolfgang Freitag argues that Gettier‐style cases that are based on the notion of “distant” epistemic luck cannot be ruled out as cases of knowledge by modal conditions such as safety or sensitivity. I argue that (1) safety and sensitivity can be easily fixed and that (2) Freitag provides no convincing reason for the existence of “distant” epistemic luck.

Distance from Safety! A Reply to Broncano‐Berrocal's “No Luck in the Distance”

“…In a recent contribution to this journal (Freitag, ), I claimed that safety and sensitivity conceptions of knowledge are unable to respond to Gettier cases of a new type characterized by “distant” epistemic luck. Fernando Broncano‐Berrocal (, also in this journal) objects that my conclusion is unwarranted and that a slight revision of the safety and sensitivity conditions will block my argument . In this brief response, I contend that, insofar as Broncano‐Berrocal's claims are correct, they are irrelevant: he does not show that his revisions are natural refinements of the original safety and sensitivity ideas.…”

“…Broncano‐Berrocal accepts C lock as a counterexample to S afety but contends that my “formulation of safety … can be easily fixed once we notice that in C lock the relevant knowledge‐undermining possibility is not the close possibility of believing p falsely when one actually believes p truly, but the close possibility of believing closely related false propositions ” (Broncano‐Berrocal, , p. 91; original emphasis). He therefore proposes the following new version of the safety condition (Broncano‐Berrocal's addition is underlined):…”

“…Now to my objections: while I agree that S afety * rules out C lock as a case of knowledge, I dispute the relevance of this result. Even if Broncano‐Berrocal's (, pp. 91–92) independent defence of his additional condition was successful, he does not show that S afety * is a natural extension of the original safety clause.…”

“…Broncano‐Berrocal's condition can be understood as a refinement of New Safety (cf. Broncano‐Berrocal, , p. 92, fn. 5), but I think that New Safety constitutes a radical break with the classical safety idea.…”

Knowledge, safety, and Gettierized lottery cases: Why mere statistical evidence is not a (safe) source of knowledge

“…This complication is irrelevant for the purposes of the paper. For discussion of this issue, see Broncano‐Berrocal ().…”