Skeptical Effectiveness: A Reply to Buford and Brueckner
In an earlier paper, I presented a novel objection to closure-based skeptical arguments. There I argued that the best account of what makes skeptical scenarios effective cripples the closure-based skeptical arguments that use those scenarios. On behalf of the skeptic, Christopher Buford and Anthony...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | 电子 文件 |
| 语言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 载入...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
Brill
2016
|
| In: |
International journal for the study of skepticism
Year: 2016, 卷: 6, 发布: 4, Pages: 397-403 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
怀疑主义
|
| Further subjects: | B
skeptical scenarios
closure principle
kk principle
false belief account
ignorance account
|
| 在线阅读: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) |
| 总结: | In an earlier paper, I presented a novel objection to closure-based skeptical arguments. There I argued that the best account of what makes skeptical scenarios effective cripples the closure-based skeptical arguments that use those scenarios. On behalf of the skeptic, Christopher Buford and Anthony Brueckner have replied to my objection. Here I review my original argument, criticize their replies, and highlight two important issues for further investigation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2210-5700 |
| Contains: | In: International journal for the study of skepticism
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22105700-05041194 |