Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Keith LEHRER: Reply to Alfred Schramm

Keith LEHRER: Reply to Alfred Schramm Schramm raises many valuable questions; more than I can deal with. I want to draw a distinction between the Tucson skeptic and me. In my book, Theory 0/ Knowledge, I used the skeptic as an explanatory fiction. In the first part of the book, I sought to explain what it was for something to cohere with a background system. A claim coheres with the background system on my account just in case the background system is adequate to meet all objections to the claim. So my claim, "there is a table here," coheres with my background system just in case my background system is adequate to meet all objections to that claim. To explain how objections are met I used the skeptic as a dialectical foil. I put the objections in the voice of the skeptic, and then I answered them. The "skeptic" was just a dialectical device for explaining what coherence iso Now let me just deal with the serious skeptic and consider whether I have an answer to her. It seems to me there are two kinds of skeptics. One is a skeptic who says, "I don't agree that anything is any more justified than anything else." http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Grazer Philosophische Studien Brill

Keith LEHRER: Reply to Alfred Schramm

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/keith-lehrer-reply-to-alfred-schramm-dloOX2F4NA

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0165-9227
eISSN
1875-6735
DOI
10.1163/18756735-90000481
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Schramm raises many valuable questions; more than I can deal with. I want to draw a distinction between the Tucson skeptic and me. In my book, Theory 0/ Knowledge, I used the skeptic as an explanatory fiction. In the first part of the book, I sought to explain what it was for something to cohere with a background system. A claim coheres with the background system on my account just in case the background system is adequate to meet all objections to the claim. So my claim, "there is a table here," coheres with my background system just in case my background system is adequate to meet all objections to that claim. To explain how objections are met I used the skeptic as a dialectical foil. I put the objections in the voice of the skeptic, and then I answered them. The "skeptic" was just a dialectical device for explaining what coherence iso Now let me just deal with the serious skeptic and consider whether I have an answer to her. It seems to me there are two kinds of skeptics. One is a skeptic who says, "I don't agree that anything is any more justified than anything else."

Journal

Grazer Philosophische StudienBrill

Published: Aug 13, 1991

There are no references for this article.