Relevant Alternatives and Missed Clues : Redux

Peter HAWKE*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)peer-review

Abstract

I construe Relevant Alternatives Theory (RAT) as an abstract combination of anti-skepticism and epistemic modesty, then re-evaluate the challenge posed to it by the missed clue counterexamples of Schaffer. The import of this challenge has been underestimated, as Schaffer’s specific argument invites distracting objections. I offer a novel formalization of RAT, accommodating a suitably wide class of concrete theories of knowledge. Then, I introduce ‘abstract missed clue cases’ and prove that every RA theory, as formalized, admits such a case. This yields an argument—in Schaffer’s spirit—that resists easy dismissal.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)245-276
Number of pages32
JournalThe Journal of Philosophy
Volume121
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2024

Bibliographical note

This paper was largely written while I was a member of the project “The Logic of
Conceivability,” funded by the European Research Council (ERC CoG), grant number
681404.

Funding

This paper was largely written while I was a member of the project “The Logic of Conceivability,” funded by the European Research Council (ERC CoG), grant number 681404. Thanks to Francesco Berto and the LoC team. For helpful comments, thanks to Julien Dutant, Ben Lennertz, my anonymous referees, and audiences at the following venues: the 2018 meeting of the European Epistemology Network in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in June 2018; the 2019 Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Vancouver, Canada, in April 2019; the epistemology seminar at Arché at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, in May 2019; and the 2019 edition of the Formal Epistemology Workshop (FEW2019) in Turin, Italy, in June 2019.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Relevant Alternatives and Missed Clues : Redux'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this