Belief contexts and epistemic possibility
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2006 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14431 |
Resumo: | Although epistemic possibility figures in several debates, those debates have had relatively little contact with one another. G. E. Moore focused squarely upon analyzing epistemic uses of the phrase, ‘It’s possible that p’, and in doing so he made two fundamental assumptions. First, he assumed that epistemic possibility statements always express the epistemic position of a community, as opposed to that of an individual speaker. Second, he assumed that all epistemic uses of ‘It’s possible that p’ are analyzable in terms of knowledge, not belief. A number of later theorists, including Keith DeRose, provide alternative accounts of epistemic possibility, while retaining Moore’s two assumptions. Neither assumption has been explicitly challenged, but Jaakko Hintikka’s analysis provides a basis for doing so. Drawing upon Hintikka’s analysis, I argue that some epistemic possibility statements express only the speaker’s individual epistemic state, and that contra DeRose, they are not degenerate community statements but a class in their own right. I further argue that some linguistic contexts are belief- rather than knowledge-based, and in such contexts, what is possible for a speaker depends not upon what she knows, but upon what she believes. |
id |
UFSC-5_0d18d972942177c32052fb5f17de1cf9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14431 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-5 |
network_name_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibilityBelief Contexts and Epistemic PossibilityAlthough epistemic possibility figures in several debates, those debates have had relatively little contact with one another. G. E. Moore focused squarely upon analyzing epistemic uses of the phrase, ‘It’s possible that p’, and in doing so he made two fundamental assumptions. First, he assumed that epistemic possibility statements always express the epistemic position of a community, as opposed to that of an individual speaker. Second, he assumed that all epistemic uses of ‘It’s possible that p’ are analyzable in terms of knowledge, not belief. A number of later theorists, including Keith DeRose, provide alternative accounts of epistemic possibility, while retaining Moore’s two assumptions. Neither assumption has been explicitly challenged, but Jaakko Hintikka’s analysis provides a basis for doing so. Drawing upon Hintikka’s analysis, I argue that some epistemic possibility statements express only the speaker’s individual epistemic state, and that contra DeRose, they are not degenerate community statements but a class in their own right. I further argue that some linguistic contexts are belief- rather than knowledge-based, and in such contexts, what is possible for a speaker depends not upon what she knows, but upon what she believes.Embora a possibilidade epistêmica apareça em vários debates, tais debates têm tido relativamente pouco contato entre si. G. E. Moore concentrou-se diretamente na análise de usos epistêmicos da expressão ‘É possível que p’, e nisso ele fez duas suposições fundamentais. Primeiro, pressupôs que os enunciados de possibilidade epistêmica sempre expressam a posição epistêmica de uma comunidade, em vez da posição de um falante individual. Segundo, pressupôs que todos os usos epistêmicos de ‘É possível que p’ sejam analisáveis em termos de conhecimento, não de crença. Alguns autores mais recentes, inclusive Keith DeRose, apresentam explicações alternativas da possibilidade epistêmica, ao mesmo tempo em que conservam as duas suposições de Moore. Nenhuma dessas pressuposições foi explicitamente contestada, mas a análise de Jaakko Hintikka fornece uma base para tal. Baseando-me na análise de Hintikka, argumento que alguns enunciados de possibilidade epistêmica expressam somente o estado epistêmico individual do falante, e que, contra DeRose, não são enunciados comunitários degenerados mas uma classe existente por si mesma. Afirmo ainda que alguns contextos lingüísticos são antes baseados em crença do que em conhecimento e, em tais contextos, o que é possível para um falante não depende do que ele sabe, mas do que ele acredita.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2006-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1443110.5007/%xPrincipia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2006); 1-20Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2006); 1-20Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 10 n. 1 (2006); 1-201808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14431/13228Copyright (c) 2021 Hylarie Kochirashttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKochiras, Hylarie2016-01-02T12:15:08Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14431Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2016-01-02T12:15:08Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility Belief Contexts and Epistemic Possibility |
title |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
spellingShingle |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility Kochiras, Hylarie |
title_short |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
title_full |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
title_fullStr |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
title_full_unstemmed |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
title_sort |
Belief contexts and epistemic possibility |
author |
Kochiras, Hylarie |
author_facet |
Kochiras, Hylarie |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kochiras, Hylarie |
description |
Although epistemic possibility figures in several debates, those debates have had relatively little contact with one another. G. E. Moore focused squarely upon analyzing epistemic uses of the phrase, ‘It’s possible that p’, and in doing so he made two fundamental assumptions. First, he assumed that epistemic possibility statements always express the epistemic position of a community, as opposed to that of an individual speaker. Second, he assumed that all epistemic uses of ‘It’s possible that p’ are analyzable in terms of knowledge, not belief. A number of later theorists, including Keith DeRose, provide alternative accounts of epistemic possibility, while retaining Moore’s two assumptions. Neither assumption has been explicitly challenged, but Jaakko Hintikka’s analysis provides a basis for doing so. Drawing upon Hintikka’s analysis, I argue that some epistemic possibility statements express only the speaker’s individual epistemic state, and that contra DeRose, they are not degenerate community statements but a class in their own right. I further argue that some linguistic contexts are belief- rather than knowledge-based, and in such contexts, what is possible for a speaker depends not upon what she knows, but upon what she believes. |
publishDate |
2006 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2006-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14431 10.5007/%x |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14431 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5007/%x |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14431/13228 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Hylarie Kochiras http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Hylarie Kochiras http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2006); 1-20 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2006); 1-20 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 10 n. 1 (2006); 1-20 1808-1711 1414-4247 reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
principia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1789435108894179328 |