PHL232H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Counterfactual Conditional, Material Conditional, Coherentism
2016-09-28
1
PHL232 Lecture 6
Nozick’s View of Knowledge
- Different than JTB because Justification is subject to two conditions—truth-tracking
conditions.
• Nozick’s view is that:
- S knows that P just in case P is true if:
• P is true
• S believes P
• If P were not true, S would not believe P.
• If P were true, S would believe P.
- Nozick’s view is that we do not know that any of the sceptical hypotheses are not
true.
- How does this follow from Nozick’s truth-tracking method?
• Given the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics for counterfactuals, we may rewrite
Nozick’s truth-tracking analysis of knowledge as follows:
- S knows that P just in case:
• S Blieves that P
• P is true
• In the closest possible world in which P is false, S does not believe P. (this
includes the counterfactual)
• In the closest possible worlds in wchih P is true, S believes P.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
2016-09-28
2
- Instead of the proposition that I am reading words on a screen (P).
Suppose that I believe that I am reading these words and the it is true.
Suppose that the first two conditions in Nozicks analysis are satisfied.
- Consider “the nearest worlds” in which P is false.
- e.g. If i didn't go to lecture, I would not be reading the words on a screen.
- In a world like that, I would not believe that I was reading the words on
the profs projector.
- Accordingly: you satisfy the third condition of Nozick’s analysis of
knowing.
- If it were not the case that you were reading the words on a screen, you
would not believe that you were.
- Consider the “nearest worlds” in which (like actuality) you are reading the
words on a screen.
- These are words in which thing are just a bit different from how they
actually are—i.e. the prof used a different font in his slides. I would still
believe that I am reading the words on a screen, satisfying the 4th
condition of Nozick’s analysis.
- Nozick’s analysis predicts that you know that you are reading these words on a screen right
now.
- Nozick allows that it is logically possible that we are a brain in a vat—i.e. the sceptical
hypothesis is true.
• Consider what things are like in the “closest possible” world where I am being deceived by
a demon, or hallucinating.
- Would you believe that you are being deceived? No.
• For this reason, condition (3) of Nozicks analysis fails at the proposition of sceptical
hypotehsis.
• According to Nozick, you do not know that you are not being deceived.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Different than jtb because justification is subject to two conditions truth-tracking conditions: nozick"s view is that: S knows that p just in case p is true if: p is true, s believes p, if p were not true, s would not believe p, if p were true, s would believe p. Nozick"s view is that we do not know that any of the sceptical hypotheses are not true. How does this follow from nozick"s truth-tracking method: given the stalnaker-lewis semantics for counterfactuals, we may rewrite. Instead of the proposition that i am reading words on a screen (p). Suppose that i believe that i am reading these words and the it is true. Suppose that the first two conditions in nozicks analysis are satisfied. Consider the nearest worlds in which p is false. E. g. if i didn"t go to lecture, i would not be reading the words on a screen.
