Embed in Glymour’s manifesto is the assumption that the value of philosophy is determined by the technical results it produces and the new avenues of research it spawns. Glymour chastises philosophers and philosophical approaches that fall short of this ideal. While, no doubt, some of the value of philosophy derives from these important outputs of philosophical research Glymour has implicitly negated another aspect of the value of philosophy: uncertainty and questions that resist complete (and concrete) answers. In The Problems of Philosophy Bertrand Russell explains this aspect of philosophy as follows:

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty…As soon as we begin to philosophise…we find…that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

The need for answers, proofs, and the policing of other, especially scientific, disciplines results from neglecting the importance of being satisfied with the raising of doubt, being satisfied with the uncertainty of philosophy. For Glymour that doubt must go somewhere, as it must eventually find a home in a discipline that produces answers—a discipline that is results-driven. This is how the value of philosophy is measured for Glymour: doubt finding its home in a results-driven domain. Given this view, it is natural for Glymour to insist on philosophy being grant-driven. Result-driven inquiry goes hand-in-hand with grant-driven inquiry. However, as explained by Russell, a great deal of the value of philosophy stems from its uncertainty—its ability to resist answers and results. If Glymour had heeded this element of the value of philosophy his manifesto might not have been so rigid and alienating, not to mention dangerous for the future of philosophy.

It has become increasingly popular to claim that the subject matter of philosophy is neither linguistic nor conceptual. In this sense, it has been suggested that the so-called “linguistic turn” was a mistake and the target of philosophy properly conceived is nonconceptual and nonlinguistic (e.g., Williamson, The Philosophy of Philosophy). Despite this, philosophers still routinely appeal to ordinary linguistic use and linguistic theory in constructing and criticising philosophical theories. The contrast between the alleged target of philosophy and continued reliance on linguistic information in solving philosophical questions raises a number of issues which are the focus of this conference.

• Link: Conference Website

As you may recall, the debate is over premise (3) in the Factivity Problem. The question is: Can Mary know in her demanding context a sentence about Frank’s epistemic status (i.e., that he knows that Mary has hands) is true in Frank’s less demanding context? According to Brueckner and Buford, Mary would have to know that she has hands in order to know whether the sentence about Frank’s epistemic status is true. Given Mary’s evidence and her demanding context, it’s not possible for Mary to know that she has hands; thus, it’s not possible for Mary to know the sentence about Frank’s epistemic status in his context is true.

Baumann claims this response doesn’t work because it requires Mary to have prior knowledge that she has hands independent from, and prior to, her knowing that Frank knows that she has hands. This is false because testimonial knowledge can be given and attained, even within a demanding context. This knowledge allows, for instance, Wiles to know that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true by reading about his results in a newspaper. Wiles had no prior knowledge of the results of Fermat’s Theorem. By analogy, Mary can “read” knowledge of Frank’s epistemic status off Ann’s testimony. Ann has better evidence of the truth of the sentence about what Frank knows about Mary having hands.

Enter: Brueckner and Buford’s final response. The problem stems from a mischaracterization of the time sequence. At time (t) Mary’s evidence about her having hands doesn’t qualify to meet the demands put on knowledge in that context. Baumann loses the time-indexing and proposes another time (t’) at which Mary meets Ann. At (t’) Mary gains testimonial knowledge and comes to know that Ann’s utterance of the sentence ‘“Frank knows that Mary has hands” is true in O’ is true in D. This is because of (X):

• (X) ‘Ann knows that Mary has hands’ is true in D.

However, contrary to Baumann’s insistence, the time shift from (t) to (t’) doesn’t hinge on a principle like (Prior). Mary doesn’t have prior, independent knowledge that the sentence is true. At (t) she has no such knowledge, but at (t’) she does have such knowledge. Brueckner and Buford are fine with this type of gain in testimonial knowledge. Their key point is that Mary’s epistemic state has altered from (t) to (t’). There’s nothing wrong with Mary failing to know that she has hands at (t) and Mary knowing that she has hands at (t’). Focusing on (t) Brueckner and Buford’s response to the Factivity Problem still stands.

Tracking this debate has been interesting. Regarding the debate itself, I would say Brueckner and Buford’s challenge is still on the table. It seems the Factivity Problem is not a problem for Contextualism. The burden of proof is on those who want to apply the problem to contextualism and then fend off the problem. Otherwise, the Factivity problem seems like a pseudo-problem. It dissolves upon closer inspection.

There might be different avenues for the contextualist to pursue in showing the problem is real and that the problem can be handled. The ‘B vs. B&B’ debate focuses around a single premise in the Factivity argument because it is viewed as, “By far the most promising way of attacking the view that there is such a factivity problem for contextualism” (Baumann 2010: 84). Yet, different avenues remain open to the contextualist. She could attack closure, factivity or disquotation principles. I wonder what the prospects are for focusing on the factivity claim in the argument ?  Listen to how strongly Baumann expresses the pull of the factivity claim:

It certainly seems weird if not crazy to deny the factivity of knowledge. Whatever knowledge is, it is factive. Nothing is a concept of knowledge in a broad sense if what it is a concept of isn’t factive. The solution to the factivity problem proposed here will therefore not deny factivity (Baumann 2008: 584).

The quote above strikes my ear as argument by brute force. Baumann doesn’t think denying the factivity claim is promising. He doesn’t argue against it because “obviously” knowledge is factive. But, couldn’t a contextualist deny factivity on fallibilist grounds (e.g., Stewart Cohen 1988)? Why does Baumann think attacking factivity is so “obviously” unfruitful? Why must it always be the case that if someone knows something then what they know is the case?

I close on a methodological note. It’s interesting to track a philosophical debate because there’s a narrowing effect that often occurs. For example, the Factivity Problem originally addressed contextualism and SSI. However, SSI dropped out of the picture never to return. I have found this true in my own work. I recently was involved in a debate that focused around a single issue. I kept trying to explain and argue a small point. After failing to make headway I conceded the point to my interlocutor. Ironically, conceding the smaller point allowed me to argue for a larger point more effectively. This is why it’s beneficial to frequently zoom out and locate the contested point in the bigger picture. For the Factivity Debate to continue the discussants need to let go of premise (3) and look at other lines of debate, including forgotten aspects of the bigger picture.

• 3 Quarks Daily 2010 prize for the best philosophy blog post. Click here to read the posts and to vote for your favorite.
• Trent Dougherty posted a link to the TOC of his forthcoming book Evidentialism and Its Discontents. This looks to be an amazing volume. Much props to Trent and C&F for hosting what looks to be a great discussion of evidentialism.
• Over at Thoughts Arguments and Rants you’ll find a discussion of the New York Times forum on experimental philosophy. Brian Weatherson and fellow commentors cover a lot of conceptual ground on this important topic.

• 7.1: Evidence Neutrality
• 7.2: Argument Against Intuitions
• 7.3: Judgment Skepticism
• 7.4: The Judgment Skeptic’s Mistake
• 7.5.1: Traditional Skepticism
• 7.5.2: More on Evidence Neutrality
• 7.6: Epistemic Conservatism
• 7.7: Reflective Equilibrium

The conference description mentions Craig’s Knowledge and the State of Nature as an example of instantiating this idea. I also think Alston’s Beyond Justification is an example of this approach.

• Knowledge channel/methodology X (e.g. RE, judgment skepticism, epistemic conservatism) relies on psychological facts (beliefs).
• X assumes those beliefs are unproblematic.
• However, those beliefs are problematic (i.e. access to the beliefs is problematic, X cannot explain/defend the beliefs).
• So, X must be abandoned as a knowledge channel/methodology because X’s reliance on psychological facts is problematic.

In working through chapter 7 I have realized that Williamson keeps reapplying the reasoning above to different philosophical methodologies (1). However, there is something right about this reasoning. It is beneficial to the enterprise of philosophy to spotlight methodologies relying on unexamined  assumptions. It is correct to label methodologies as problematic pending further defense of those assumptions. Williamson makes this point in connection with RE:

[O]ne has no basis for an epistemological assessment of the method of reflective equilibrium in philosophy without more information about the epistemological status of the “intuitions.” In particular, it matters what kind of evidence “intuitions” provide (2007: 244).

RE must defend the intuitions it relies on. The epistemic status of intuitions (as inputs in the RE process) must be elaborated. Based on his comments it seems Williamson is unaware that the literature on RE contains accounts addressing the epistemic status of considered moral judgments (i.e. RE’s version of intuitions). Some philosophers hold that intuitions constitute evidence like observations in science do. If this is the case, then ”observed facts are sometimes relevant evidence,” as Williamson objects, and this is no problem for RE. There are, however, problems with the analogy between intuitions and observation reports. I address these issues within the RE literature in the first half of my thesis. In the second half of my thesis I provide a positive account of the epistemic status of intuitions. It is my hope that this account can establish the evidential value of intuitions and directly address the concern Williamson raises. This makes it reasonable to rely on intuitions within RE methodology, as within RE are found the tools for explaining and defending the status of intuitions as evidence.

Notes

(1) I wonder if this way of thinking pervades the entire book. If so, what seems like a dynamic tome on philosophical methodology reduces to a one trick pony (i.e. externalism is true, or internalism is false).

—–

P.S. I will be on a brief hiatus from blogging. I am in the process of moving (fun, fun, fun). Also, I am trying to decide what kind of posting to do next. I will likely take a break from commenting on a chapter from a book and proceed on a topic-by-topic basis. Though, I must admit, I am tempted to tackle some of Moser’s Knowledge and Evidence. I am still kicking around that possibility.

• A requirement on rational belief frequently invoked in epistemology and inductive logic is the total evidence requirement (TER). This requirement asks one to consult all evidence when making a determination about what one believes or the degree of confirmation to assign to a hypothesis. Despite the wide-spread use of the requirement there are many problems with it. After explaining the requirement in section 1 of this paper I motivate the requirement in section 2. In section 3, I highlight problems with successive interpretations of the requirement. This applies pressure to abandon TER or revise it. In section 4, I create the proportional evidence requirement (PER). This requirement revises the notion of what constitutes relevant evidence by making the notion proportional to the weight of evidence for a given hypothesis. After formulating two key principles behind PER I realize that one of the principles may not be an improvement over the commitments of TER. So, I revise one of the principles in PER to avoid such problems and create a requirement on evidence that is truly an upgrade over TER. I conclude this paper in section 5 by summarizing and indicating directions for future research.

Update: The paper is now down for revision.

(PEC): If S believes that p and p is not incoherent, then S is justified in retaining the belief that p and S remains justified in believing that p so long as p is not defeated for S.

PEC captures the notion that one has a defeasible right to one’s beliefs. One loses one’s right to one’s beliefs given two conditions of defeat:

(DC1): If S has better reasons for believing that ∼p than S’s reasons for believing that p, then S is no longer justified in believing that p.

(DC2): If S has reasons for believing that ∼p which are as good as S’s reasons for believing that p and the belief that ∼p coheres equally as well or better than the belief that p does with S’s other beliefs, then S is no longer justified in believing that p.

Given PEC, the justification for believing p is analogous to the justification that S’s lacking a defeater provides. Lacking a defeater provides some justification, but it does not count as part of S’s reasons for believing. As McCain mentions, “S’s justification for believing that p is bolstered by her believing that p, but her belief that p does not count among her reasons for believing that p” (2008: 187). In short, belief that p cannot be used as a reason for believing that p. In a situation where S has another belief (or inclination to believe) that is inconsistent with p, S cannot use her believing that p as a reason to continue believing p. DC1 indicates that reasons for believing that ~p can act as defeaters and eliminate S’s justification for believing that p. DC2 indicates that if reasons for believing that ~p rival reasons for believing that p, and the belief that ~p coheres better with S’s other beliefs, then S has lost her justification for believing that p.

Williamson mentions that if intuitions are beliefs then they fall under epistemic conservatism. Do inclinations to believe also give one a defeasible right to one’s beliefs? What does epistemic conservatism council one to do when one has an inclination to believe something that is inconsistent with a belief one is currently committed to? Williamson uses a Gettier scenario to show that one cannot use an inclination to believe to arrive at a new belief. One can be inclined to believe something without believing it, and inclinations can conflict. When an inclination to believe something conflicts with a currently held belief, then, given epistemic conservatism, the currently held belief can be retained. Williamson (2007) arrives at this conclusion by claiming:

If I currently believe p, I am currently committed to the belief that any inclination to believe something inconsistent with p is an inclination to believe something false. I am not committed to the beliefs I am merely inclined to have in the way I am committed to my current beliefs (p. 243).

Given the PEC/DC1/DC2 package, an inclination to believe something inconsistent with a currently held belief (p), namely ~p,  can serve as a reason to believe that ~p. That one believes that p cannot be used as a positive reason for retaining the belief that p in the face of reasons against that belief. Conservatism does not commit one to dogmatism. Simply because p is a belief (or because it is believed), and the reason to believe that ~p is arrived at via an inclination to believe, does not warrant retaining the belief that p. The inclination counts as a reason to favor ~p, so it is a potential defeater that must be overcome by reasons in favor of retaining p. Williamson does not offer any. What Williamson argues is that because an inclination is not fully believed it is not enough to overcome a belief that is actually believed or firmly believed. Williamson uses that fact that p is believed as a reason to retain p, which is a violation of PEC.

By contrast, what Williamson needs to argue is that an inclination to believe that ~p is not a reason that trumps the reasons in favor of believing that p. However, as the case is currently constructed, Williamson is not able to do this. In the Gettier case Williamson describes the reason Justin has for believing that knowledge is equal to justified true belief is that “Justin has been brought up to believe” that JTB theory is true. Is familial inculcation a reason for believing p that trumps the intuition that when presented with a Gettier case Justin judges that the Gettier subject has a JTB without knowledge? If anything, familial inculcation is often cited as a source of bias, blind belief and wishful thinking in the face of contrary evidence. This suggests that the inclination to believe that ~p, which is formed when presented with the Gettier case, is stronger than the reasons Williamson presents for favoring the belief that p. Thus, the intuition can serve as a defeater in this case, and epistemic conservatism councils Justin to abandon his inculcated belief and move to the new belief that the subject in the Gettier case has a JTB without knowledge or that JTB theory is false.