Search

The author discusses several arguments that support the theory of constrastivism. He examines how such arguments were challenged in different ways through published criticisms of constrastivism and outlines its theoretical advantages. However, the author asserts that despite the theoretical benefits of the theory, there are compelling reasons that made it false.

In this article the author comments on views given on his article on knowledge by acquaintance. The author says that the objectual knowledge is knowledge by acquaintance, where acquaintance needs an encounter in experience that allows for a good look at the thing. He also says that knowledge has a nature which partly involves knowledge by acquaintance.

The article focuses on fallibilism, epistemic possibility and concessive knowledge attributions (CKA). The author mentions that if knowing requires believing on evidence that entails what is believed, then they have hardly any knowledge at all. It stresses that the near-universal acceptance of fallibilism in epistemology is because denying that one can know on the basis of non-entailing evidence seems not an option if they are to preserve the very strong appearance that they do know many things. It mentions how author Jason Stanley defended fallibilism against the Lewisian worry that openly fallibilistic speech is incoherent.