Small stakes give you the blues: The skeptical costs of pragmatic encroachment

Journal article


Littlejohn, Clayton. (2017). Small stakes give you the blues: The skeptical costs of pragmatic encroachment. Manuscrito: revista internacional de filosofia. 40(4), pp. 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2017.v40n4.cl
AuthorsLittlejohn, Clayton
Abstract

According to the fallibilist, it is possible for us to know things when our evidence doesn't entail that our beliefs are correct. Even if there is some chance that we're mistaken about p, we might still know that p is true. Fallibilists will tell you that an important virtue of their view is that infallibilism leads to skepticism. In this paper, we'll see that fallibilist impurism has considerable skeptical consequences of its own. We've missed this because we've focused our attention on the high-stakes cases that they discuss in trying to motivate their impurism about knowledge. We'll see this once we think about the fallibilist impurist's treatment of low-stakes cases. […] when error would be especially disastrous, few possibilities are properly ignored (Lewis 1996: 556, n. 12).

Keywordspragmatic encroachment
Year2017
JournalManuscrito: revista internacional de filosofia
Manuscrito
Journal citation40 (4), pp. 31-38
PublisherUniversidade Estadual de Campinas
ISSN0100-6045
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2017.v40n4.cl
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85041844718
Open accessPublished as ‘gold’ (paid) open access
Research or scholarlyResearch
Page range31-38
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online2017
Publication process dates
Accepted09 Oct 2017
Deposited19 May 2022
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8xwq7/small-stakes-give-you-the-blues-the-skeptical-costs-of-pragmatic-encroachment

Download files


Publisher's version
OA_Littlejohn_2017_Small_stakes_give_you_the_blues.pdf
License: CC BY 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 46
    total views
  • 17
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 1
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

What is rational belief?
Dutant, Julien and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2023). What is rational belief? Nous. pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12456
This is epistemology : An introduction
Carter, J.Adam and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2021). This is epistemology : An introduction Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowledge, justification, belief, and suspension
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2021). Knowledge, justification, belief, and suspension. Philosophical Topics. 49(2), pp. 371-384. https://doi.org/10.5840/PHILTOPICS202149230
Justified belief and just conviction
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2021). Justified belief and just conviction. In In Hoskins, Zachary and Robson, Jon (Ed.). The social epistemology of legal trials pp. 106-123 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283123-7
Neither/nor
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2021). Neither/nor. In In Doyle, Casey, Milburn, Joe and Pritchard, Duncan (Ed.). New issues in epistemological disjunctivism pp. 215-240 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315106243-11
Even if it might not be true, evidence cannot be false
Littlejohn, Clayton and Dutant, Julien. (2021). Even if it might not be true, evidence cannot be false. Philosophical Studies. 179(3), pp. 801-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01695-0
Eleven angry men
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2021). Eleven angry men. Philosophical issues. 31(1), pp. 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12197
On what we should believe (and when (and why) we should believe what we know we should not believe)
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2020). On what we should believe (and when (and why) we should believe what we know we should not believe). In In McCain, Kevin and Stapleford, Scott (Ed.). Epistemic duties : New arguments, new angles pp. 191-207 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030215-15
Defeaters as indicators of ignorance
Dutant, Julien and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2020). Defeaters as indicators of ignorance. In In Brown, Jessica and Simion, Mona (Ed.). Reasons, justification, and defeat pp. 223-246 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847205.003.0010
Should we be dogmatically conciliatory?
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2020). Should we be dogmatically conciliatory? Philosophical Studies. 177(5), pp. 1381-1398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01258-4
Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2020). Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law. Synthese. 197(12), pp. 5253-5286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1608-4
Justification, knowledge, and normality
Littlejohn, Clayton and Dutant, Julien. (2020). Justification, knowledge, and normality. Philosophical Studies. 177(6), pp. 1593-1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01276-2
Being more realistic about reasons : On rationality and reasons perspectivism
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2019). Being more realistic about reasons : On rationality and reasons perspectivism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 99(3), pp. 605-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12518
Reasons and theoretical rationality
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Reasons and theoretical rationality. In In Star, Daniel (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of reasons and normativity pp. 529-552 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199657889.013.24
Objectivism and subjectivism in epistemology
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Objectivism and subjectivism in epistemology. In In Mitova, Veli (Ed.). The factive turn in epistemology pp. 142-160 Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316818992.009
Knowledge, reason, and errors about error theory
Côté-Bouchard, Charles and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Knowledge, reason, and errors about error theory. In In Kyriacou, Christos and McKenna, Robin (Ed.). Metaepistemology : Realism and anti-realism pp. 147-171 Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93369-6
The right in the good : A defense of teleological non-consequentialism
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). The right in the good : A defense of teleological non-consequentialism. In In Ahlstrom-Vij, H. Kristoffer and Dunn, Jeffrey (Ed.). Epistemic consequentialism pp. 23-47 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198779681.003.0002
Standing in a garden of forking
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Standing in a garden of forking. In In McCain, Kevin (Ed.). Believing in accordance with the evidence : New essays on evidentialism pp. 223-243 Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95993-1_13
Evidence and its limits
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Evidence and its limits. In In McHugh, Conor, Way, Jonathan and Whiting, Daniel (Ed.). Normativity : Epistemic and practical pp. 115-136 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758709.003.0007
Knowledge and normativity
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Knowledge and normativity. In In Hetherington, Stephen and Valaris, Markos (Ed.). Knowledge in contemporary philosophy pp. 249-268 Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474258814.ch-013
Moore’s Paradox and assertion
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Moore’s Paradox and assertion. In In Goldberg, Sanford (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of Assertion pp. 707-725 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675233.013.12
Just do it? When to do what you judge you ought to do
Dutant, Julien and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Just do it? When to do what you judge you ought to do. Synthese. 195(9), pp. 3755-3772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1220-z
Stop making sense? On a puzzle about rationality
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2018). Stop making sense? On a puzzle about rationality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 96(2), pp. 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12271
How and why knowledge is first
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2017). How and why knowledge is first. In Knowledge first : Approaches in epistemology and mind pp. 19-45 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198716310.003.0002
When ignorance is no excuse
Alvarez, Maria and Littlejohn, Clayton. (2017). When ignorance is no excuse. In In Robichaud, Philip and Wieland, Jan Willem (Ed.). Responsibility : The epistemic condition pp. 1-22 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198779667.001.0001
La verdad en el Gnosticismo : The truth in gnosticism
Littlejohn, Clayde. (2016). La verdad en el Gnosticismo : The truth in gnosticism. Análisis. 3(2), pp. 217-241. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_arif/a.rif.201621568
Learning from learning from our mistakes
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2016). Learning from learning from our mistakes. In In Grajner, Martin and Schmechtig, Pedro (Ed.). Epistemic reasons, norms and goals pp. 51-70 Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110496765-004
Do reasons and evidence share the same residence?
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2016). Do reasons and evidence share the same residence? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 93(3), pp. 720-727. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12350
Pritchard's reasons
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2016). Pritchard's reasons. Journal of Philosophical Research. 41, pp. 201-219. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr201672277
Who cares what you accurately believe?
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2015). Who cares what you accurately believe? Philosophical Perspectives. 29(1), pp. 217-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12064
Fake barns and false dilemmas
Littlejohn, Clayton. (2014). Fake barns and false dilemmas. Episteme. 11(4), pp. 369-389. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2014.24