The Gettier-illusion: Gettier-partialism and infallibilism

Synthese 188 (2):217-230 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Could the standard interpretation of Gettier cases reflect a fundamental confusion? Indeed so. How well can epistemologists argue for the truth of that standard interpretation? Not so well. A methodological mistake is allowing them not to notice how they are simply (and inappropriately) being infallibilists when regarding Gettiered beliefs as failing to be knowledge. There is no Gettier problem that we have not merely created for ourselves by unwittingly being infallibilists about knowledge

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,597

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-03

Downloads
182 (#133,110)

6 months
12 (#304,424)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen Hetherington
University of New South Wales

Citations of this work

Philosophical expertise beyond intuitions.Anna Drożdżowicz - 2017 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (2):253-277.
Defeasibility and Gettierization: A Reminder.Claudio de Almeida & J. R. Fett - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):152-169.
The extended knower.Stephen Hetherington - 2012 - Philosophical Explorations 15 (2):207 - 218.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Philosophy of Philosophy.Timothy Williamson - 2007 - Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowledge in an uncertain world.Jeremy Fantl & Matthew McGrath - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Matthew McGrath.
Theory of knowledge.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1966 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.

View all 32 references / Add more references