How infallibilists can have it all

Journal article


Climenhaga, Nevin. (2023). How infallibilists can have it all. Monist: an international quarterly of general philosophical inquiry. 106(4), pp. 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onad020
AuthorsClimenhaga, Nevin
Abstract

I advance a novel argument for an infallibilist theory of knowledge, according to which we know all and only those propositions that are certain for us. I argue that this theory lets us reconcile major extant theories of knowledge, in the following sense: for any of these theories, if we require that its central condition (evidential support, reliability, safety, etc.) obtains to a maximal degree, we get a theory of knowledge extensionally equivalent to infallibilism. As such, the infallibilist can affirm that, when their conditions are suitably interpreted, most post-Gettier theories of knowledge offer necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. The infallibilist can thus reconcile major theories of knowledge, and is in a better position to explain the intuitive appeal of these theories than the fallibilist who only accepts one of them, and rejects the rest.

Keywordsinfallibilist theory of knowledge
Year01 Jan 2023
JournalMonist: an international quarterly of general philosophical inquiry
Journal citation106 (4), pp. 363-380
PublisherOxford University Press
ISSN0026-9662
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onad020
Web address (URL)https://academic.oup.com/monist/article/106/4/363/7319399
Open accessOpen access
Research or scholarlyResearch
Page range363-380
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online17 Oct 2023
Publication process dates
Accepted2023
Deposited05 Jul 2024
Additional information

© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Monist

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

Place of publicationUnited States
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/90qx4/how-infallibilists-can-have-it-all

Download files


Publisher's version
OA_Climenhaga_2023_How_infallibilists_can_have_it_all.pdf
License: CC BY-NC 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 33
    total views
  • 12
    total downloads
  • 2
    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

Images of Mercy : Narrating the Gospel through a Rwandan Catholic Shrine
Climenhaga, Alison Marie Fitchett and Climenhaga, Nevin. (2024). Images of Mercy : Narrating the Gospel through a Rwandan Catholic Shrine. In In Stump, Eleonore and Wolfe, Judith (Ed.). Biblical Narratives and Human Flourishing: Knowledge Through Narrative pp. 199 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003422587-16
Evidence and Inductive Inference
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2024). Evidence and Inductive Inference. In In Lasonen-Aarnio, Maria and Littlejohn, Clayton (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evidence pp. 435-449 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672687-39
Epistemic probabilities are degrees of support, not degrees of (rational) belief
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2023). Epistemic probabilities are degrees of support, not degrees of (rational) belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. pp. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12947
Molinism : Explaining our freedom away
Climenhaga, Nevin and Rubio, Daniel. (2022). Molinism : Explaining our freedom away. Mind. 131(522), pp. 459-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab042
A cumulative case argument for infallibilism
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2021). A cumulative case argument for infallibilism. In In Kyriacou, Christos and Wallbridge, Kevin (Ed.). Skeptical invariantism reconsidered pp. 57-79 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429353468-6
Causal inference from noise
Climenhaga, Nevin, DesAutels, Lane and Ramsey, Grant. (2021). Causal inference from noise. Noûs. 55(1), pp. 152-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12300
The structure of epistemic probabilities
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2020). The structure of epistemic probabilities. Philosophical Studies. 177(11), pp. 3213-3242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01367-0
Papias's prologue and the probability of parallels
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2020). Papias's prologue and the probability of parallels. Journal of Biblical Literature. 139(3), pp. 591-596. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1393.2020.8
Can we know God? New insights from religious epistemology
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2019). Can we know God? New insights from religious epistemology United States of America: John Templeton Foundation.
Infinite value and the best of all possible worlds
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2018). Infinite value and the best of all possible worlds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 97(2), pp. 367 - 392. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12383
Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2018). Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy. Mind: A Quarterly review of philosophy. 127(505), pp. 69 - 104. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw032
How explanation guides confirmation
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2017). How explanation guides confirmation. Philosophy of Science: official journal of the Philosophy of Science Association. 84(2), pp. 359 - 368. https://doi.org/10.1086/690723
Inference to the best explanation made incoherent
Climenhaga, Nevin. (2017). Inference to the best explanation made incoherent. Journal of Philosophy. 114(5), pp. 251 - 273. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2017114519