The Pragmatic Gettier: Brandom on Knowledge and Belief

María José Frápolli
Universidad de Granada, Spain | frapolli@ugr.es

Received: 31-August-2018 | Accepted: 15-December-2018 | Published: 30-June-2019
Disputatio [Jun. 2019], Vol. 8, No. 9, pp. 00-00 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2652385
Article | [EN] | Full Text | Statistics | Copyright Notice [es] | Vol. 8 No. 9

How to cite this article:

Frápolli, María José (2019). «The Pragmatic Gettier Brandom on Knowledge and Belief». Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin 8, no. 9: pp. 00–00.


Abstract | Knowledge and belief fully display the pragmatic features that make of them different concepts only in third-person epistemic attributions. This is the main thesis of this paper, which has three sections. In section 1 I argue, following a pragmatic reading of Gettier, that agents on their own lights cannot tell the difference between what they know and what they believe that they know. The reason lies on the pragmatic peculiarities of normative notions, which according to Brandom’s normative expressivism amount to saying that first-person epistemic claims lack the required complexity to ground a complete contrasting analysis of the concepts of knowledge and belief. Section 2 deals with the norms of assertion and elaborates in more classical terms something that follows from Brandom’s treatment of assertions, i.e. that assertions are expressions of belief that must be taken as knowledge claims. Finally, in section 3, I propose to explain the link between third person ascriptions and first person avowals by borrowing one of Ramsey’s hints on truth ascriptions to derive the role of the latter from that of the former. First-person epistemic claims, I suggest, are essentially the result of reactive actions, being their role dependent upon the functioning of third-person attributions.
Keywords |
Assertion · Epistemic Claims · Epistemic Attributions · Expressivism · Ramsey.

El Gettier pragmático: Brandom sobre conocimiento y creencia

Resumen | Conocimiento y creencia despliegan plenamente las características pragmáticas que los convierten en conceptos diferentes sólo en atribuciones epistémicas de tercera persona. Esta es la tesis principal de este trabajo que tiene tres secciones. En la sección 1 arguyo, de acuerdo a una lectura pragmática de Gettier, que los agentes no pueden decir, desde su propio punto de vista, cuál es la diferencia entre lo que saben y lo que creen saber. La razón de esto se encuentra en las peculiaridades pragmáticas de nociones normativas que, de acuerdo al expresivismo normativo de Brandom, equivale a decir que declaraciones epistémicas de primera persona carecen de la complejidad requerida para servir de base de un análisis contrastante completo de los conceptos de conocimiento y creencia. La sección 2 se ocupa de las normas de afirmación y detalla en términos más clásicos algo que se sigue del tratamiento Brandomiano de afirmaciones, a saber, que las afirmaciones son expresiones de creencias que se tienen que tomar como declaraciones de conocimiento. Finalmente, en la sección 3 propongo explicar la conexión entre adscripciones de tercera persona y manifestaciones de primera persona tomando prestado una de las indicaciones de Ramsey acerca de adscripciones de verdad para derivar el papel de los últimos de aquel de los primeros. Declaraciones epistémicas de primera persona, sugiero, son esencialmente el resultado de acciones reactivas, su papel dependiendo del funcionamiento de las atribuciones de tercera persona.
Palabras Clave | Afirmación · Declaraciones epistémicas · Atribuciones epistémicas · Expresivismo · Ramsey.


References

Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ahlstrom–Vij, Kristoffer (2013). “Moderate epistemic expressivism.” Philosophical Studies 163: pp. 337–357. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9818-y.

Ayer, Alfred J. (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic. London: Penguin Books.

Ayer, Afred J. (ed.) (1959). Logical Positivism. London, New York: The Free Press.

Blackburn, Simon (1998). Ruling Passions. A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brandom, Robert B. (1994). Making it Explicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Brandom, Robert B. (2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brandom, Robert B. (2009). Reason in Philosophy. Animating Ideas. Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674053618.

Carnap, Rudolf (1932/1950). “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”. In Logical Positivism, edited by Alfred J. Ayer. London, New York: The Free Press, pp. 60–81.

Chalmers, Davis J. and Hajek, Alan (2007). “Ramsey + Moore = God”. Analysis 67, no. 2: pp. 170–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/67.2.170.

Chrisman, Matthew (2007). “From epistemic contextualism to epistemic expressivism”. Philosophical Studies, 135: pp. 225–254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2012-3.

Chrisman, Matthew (2012). “Epistemic Expressivism”. Philosophy Compass 7: pp. 118–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00465.x.

Craig, Edward (1990). Knowledge and the state of nature: an essay in conceptual synthesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198238797.001.0001

Davidson, Donald (1991). “Three varieties of knowledge”. In Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, edited by A. Phillips Griffiths, pp. 153–166. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100007748.

Derose, Keith (1992). “Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52, no 4: pp. 913–929. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2107917.

Field, Hartry (2009). “Epistemology without Metaphysics”. Philosophical Studies 143, no. 2: pp. 249–290. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9338-1.

Field, Hartry (2017). “Disarming a Paradox of Validity”. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 58, no. 1: pp. 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-3699865.

Frápolli, María José (2012). The Nature of Truth. An updated approach to the meaning of truth ascriptions. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4464-6_3.

Frápolli, María José y Villanueva, Neftalí (2012). “Minimal Expressivism”. Dialectica, 66, no. 4: pp. 471–487 doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12000.

Frege, Gottlob (1979). Posthumous Writings. Boston: University of Chicago Press.

Gettier, Edmund L. (1966). “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23: pp. 121–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121.

Gerken, Mikkel (2013). “The Role of Knowledge Ascriptions in Epistemic Assessment”. European Journal of Philosophy 23, no. 1: pp. 141–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12026.

Gibbard, Allan (2003). Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Gibbard, Allan (2012). Meaning and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646074.001.0001.

Goldman, Alvin I. (1967). “A causal theory of knowing”. Journal of Philosophy 64, no. 12: pp. 357–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2024268.

Goldman, Alvin I. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grice, H. Paul (1957). “Meaning”. Philosophical Review 66: pp. 377–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440.

Grice, H. Paul (1968). “Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence–Meaning, and Word–Meaning”. Foundations of Language 4, no. 3: pp. 225–242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2727-8_2.

Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, edited by Pete Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

Hannon, Michael J. (2015). “The importance of knowledge ascriptions”. Philosophy Compass 10, no. 12: pp. 856–866. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12290.

Hawthorne, John, rothschild, Daniel, and spectre, Levi (2016). “Belief is weak”. Philosophical Studies 173: pp. 1393–1404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0553-7.

Heller, Mark (1999). “The proper role of contextualism in an Anti–Luck Epistemology”. Nous 33: pp. 115–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.33.s13.5.

Huemer, Michael (2007). “Moore’s paradox and the norm of belief”. In Themes from G.E.Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics, edited by Susana Nuccetelli and Gary Seay, pp. 142–157. Oxford University Press.

Jones, O. R. (1991). “Moore’s paradox, Assertion, and Knowledge.” Analysis 51, no. 4: pp. 183–186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/51.4.183.

Kaplan, David (1989). “Demonstratives. An essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals”. In Themes From Kaplan, edited by Joseph Almog, John Perry and Howard Wettstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 481–563.

Lewis, David (1980). “Index, context, and content”. In Philosophy and Grammar, edited by Stig Kanger and Sven Öhman, pp. 79–100. Reidel: Synthese Library. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9012-8_6.

Lewis, D. (1996). “Elusive Knowledge”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, no. 4: pp. 549–567. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409612347521.

MacFarlane, John (2011). “What is Assertion?” In Assertion: New Philosophical Essays, edited by Jessica Brown and Herman Cappelen, pp. 79–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.003.0004.

MacFarlane, John (2014). Assessment Sensitivity. Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001.

Miracchi, Lisa (2015). Competence to know. Philosophical Studies 172: pp. 29–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0325-9.

McDowell, John. H. (1998): Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, George E. (1993). “Moore’s Paradox”. In G. E. Moore: Selected Writings, ed. Thomas Baldwin. New York: Routledge, pp. 207–12.

Olsson, Erik J. (2015). “Gettier and the method of explication: a 60 year old solution to a 50 year old problem”. Philosophical Studies 172: pp. 57–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0383-z.

Pritchard, Duncan (2015). “Anti–luck epistemology and the Gettier problem”. Philosophical Studies 172: pp. 93–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0374-0.

Quine, Willard van Orman (1956). “Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes”. The Journal of Philosophy 53, no. 5: pp. 177–187. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2022451.

Ramsey, Frank P. (1926). Truth and Probability. In The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, edited by R.B. Braithwaite, ch. VII, pp. 156–198. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Turner & Co., New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Ramsey, Frank P. (1927/1991). “The Nature of Truth.” In (eds.), On Truth. Original manuscript materials (1927–1929) from the Ramsey collection at the University of Pittsburgh, edited by Nicholas Rescher and Ulrich Majer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Ramsey, Frank P. (1929). “Last Papers: Probability and Partial Belief.” In The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, edited by R.B. Braithwaite, ch. X, Part C, pp. 256–7. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Turner & Co., New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Recanati, François (2003). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615382.

Recanati, François (2007). Perspectival Thought. A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230532.001.0001.

Ridge, Michael (2007). “Expressivism and Epistemology: Epistemology for Ecumenical Expressivists”. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 81, no. 1: pp. 83–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2007.00152.x.

Rorty, Richard (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rorty, Richard (1990). Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173643

Schroeter, Laura and Schroeter, François (2014). “Normative concepts: A connectedness Model”. Philosophers’ Imprint 14, no. 25: pp. 1–26.

Sellars, Wilfrid (1956/1997). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stalnaker, Robert C. (1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001.

Schilpp, Paul Arthur (1952). The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. Library of Living Philosophers. New York: Tudor Pub. Co.

Stevenson, Charles Leslie (1937). “The emotive meaning of ethical terms”. Mind 46, no. 181: pp.14–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVI.181.14.

Turri, John (2016). Knowledge and the Norm of Assertion. An Essay in Philosophical Science. Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers. doi: https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0083.

Unger, Peter (1975). Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Urmson, James Opie (1952). “Parenthetical Verbs”. Mind 61, no. 244: pp. 480–496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXI.244.480

Williams, Michael (2001). Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, Timothy (1996). “Knowing and Asserting”. Philosophical Review 105: pp. 489–523. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2998423.

Williamson, Timothy (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953/1968). Philosophical Investigations [PI]. 3rd. ed. Trans. by G.E.M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1967). Zettel. Edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2008). Wittgenstein in Cambridge. Letters and Documents 1911–1951, edited by Brian McGuinness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Valcin, Seth (2011). “Nonfactualism about epistemic modality.” In Epistemic Modality, edited by Andy Egan and Brian Weatherson, pp. 295–332. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591596.003.0011.


© The author(s) 2019. This work, published by Disputatio [www.disputatio.eu], is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License [BY–NC–ND]. The copy, distribution and public communication of this work will be according to the copyright notice. For inquiries and permissions, please email: boletin@disputatio.eu.
Anuncios