Dear All, Further to Dan's email about Michael Williams at the MSC, here is an abstract of the talk.
Best wishes, Owen Abstract: The mainstream tradition in modern philosophy teaches that knowledge is to be understood in deontological terms. In broad terms: (i) To know is to enjoy epistemic authority. Knowledge is justified true belief: belief to which one is epistemically entitled. (ii) Epistemic authority is acquired/maintained living up to one's epistemic obligations. (iii) These obligations involve the ability to give (thus the possession and proper use) of reasons and evidence. There is an essential connection between being justified and being able to justify. Although, in recent years, this traditional approach to understanding knowledge has come under sustained assault from various forms of epistemic reliabilism, in my view it remains the option of choice. To defend this claim, I shall examine knowledge-or more precisely epistemic concepts-from a pragmatic standpoint, one that takes seriously the question "Why do we have such concepts in the first place?" Along the way I shall presenet a meta-theoretical analysis of explanations of meaning in terms of use (EMUs). I will end with a few words about skepticism. _____________________________________________________ Sent by the CamPhilEvents mailing list. To unsubscribe or change your membership options, please visit the list information page: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEvents Posts are archived here: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEventsArchive
