Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:32:16.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Stephen Hetherington
Stephen Hetherington
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Knowledge and the Gettier Problem , pp. 226 - 236
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, J. (2012). Experimental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Almeder, R. (1992). Blind Realism: An Essay on Human Knowledge and Natural Science. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Alston, W. P. (1989). Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1978a). Nominalism and Realism (Universals and Scientific Realism vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1978b). A Theory of Universals (Universals and Scientific Realism vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (2004). Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artemov, S. (2008). “The logic of justification.” Review of Symbolic Logic 1: 477–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1970). “Other minds,” pp. 71–116 in Philosophical Papers, 2nd edn., ed. by Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. (2014). “Does luck have a place in epistemology?” Synthese 191: 1391–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, P. (2014). “No luck with knowledge? On a dogma of epistemology.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 523–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baz, A. (2012). “Must philosophers rely on intuitions?” Journal of Philosophy 109: 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. (2012). “Methods and how to individuate them,” pp. 81–97 in The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology, ed. by Becker, K. and Black, T.. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. and Black, T. (2012). “The resilience of sensitivity,” pp. 1–8 in The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology, ed. by Becker, K. and Black, T.. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, J. R. (2014). “Introduction,” pp. 1–8 in Advances in Experimental Epistemology, ed. by Beebe, J. R.. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bernecker, S. (2011). “Keeping track of the Gettier problem.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92: 127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, T. (2011). “Modal and anti-luck epistemology,” pp. 187–98 in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, ed. by Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bogardus, T. (2014). “Knowledge under threat.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88: 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogardus, T. and Marxen, C. (2014). “Yes, safety is in danger.” Philosophia 42: 321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A. R. (2014). “The Gettier illusion, the tripartite analysis, and the Divorce thesis.” Erkenntnis 79: 625–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, G. (2015a). Achievement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, G. (2015b). “Knowledge, achievement, and manifestation.” Erkenntnis 80: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, B. (2009). Well-Being and Death. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. (2014). “A relevant alternatives solution to the bootstrapping and self-knowledge problems.” Journal of Philosophy 111: 379–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, W. (2012). “Non-traditional factors in judgments about knowledge.” Philosophy Compass 7: 278–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, W. and Stich, S. (2014). “Gender and philosophical intuition,” pp. 307–46 in Experimental Philosophy, vol. 2., ed. by Knobe, J. and Nichols, S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without Intuitions. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability (1962: 2nd edn). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carrier, L. S. (1993). “The roots of knowledge.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2012). Constructing the World. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1966). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1977). Theory of Knowledge, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1989). Theory of Knowledge, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2011a). “What intuitions are like.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 625–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2011b). “What should a theory of knowledge do?” Dialectica 65: 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, I. M. (2010). “Getting ‘lucky’ with Gettier.” European Journal of Philosophy 21: 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, I. M. (2013). “Manifest failure failure: The Gettier problem revived.” Philosophia 41: 171–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1986). “Knowledge and context.” Journal of Philosophy 83: 574–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. (1991). “Skepticism, relevance, and relativity,” pp. 17–37 in Dretske and His Critics, ed. by McLaughlin, B. P.. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. and Comesaña, J. (2013). “Williamson on Gettier cases and epistemic logic.” Inquiry 56: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colaço, D., Buckwalter, W., Stich, S., and Machery, E. (2014). “Epistemic intuitions in fake-barn thought experiments.” Episteme 11: 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
de Almeida, C., and Fett, J. R. (2016). “Defeasibility and gettierization: A reminder.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94: 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaul, M. R., and Ramsey, W., eds. (1998). Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1999). “Contextualism: An explanation and defense,” pp. 187–205 in The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, ed. by Greco, J. and Sosa, E.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. (2010). “Intuitions, counter-examples, and experimental philosophy.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 447–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. (2015). The Myth of the Intuitive: Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Method. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2011). “Fallibilism,” pp. 131–43 in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, ed. by Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1970). “Epistemic operators.” Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1971). “Conclusive reasons.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1997). “So do we know or don’t we?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 407–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (1978). “Truth,” pp. 1–24 in his Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Engel, M. (1992). “Is epistemic luck compatible with knowledge?” Southern Journal of Philosophy 30: 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, M. (2011). “Epistemic luck.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: www.iep.utm.edu/epi-luck.Google Scholar
Fantl, J., and McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (1985). “Reliability and justification.” The Monist 68: 159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (1988). “Having evidence,” pp. 83–104 in Philosophical Analysis: A Defense by Example, ed. by Austin, D. F.. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, L. (2004). “On the logical unsolvability of the Gettier problem.” Synthese 142: 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (1994). Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. (1996). “Aristotle’s rationalism,” pp. 157–73 in Rationality in Greek Thought, ed. by Frede, M. and Striker, G.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallois, A. (2006). “Is knowing having the right to be sure?” pp. 169–81 in Aspects of Knowing: Epistemological Essays, ed. by Hetherington, S.. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ganeri, J. (forthcoming 2017). “Śrīharṣa’s dissident epistemology: Knowledge as assurance,” in The Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy, ed. by Ganeri, J.. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, E. L. (1963). “Is justified true belief knowledge?” Analysis 23: 121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordani, A. (2013). “A logic of justification and truthmaking.” Review of Symbolic Logic 6: 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girle, R. (2009). Modal Logics and Philosophy, 2nd edn. Durham, NC: Acumen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glock, H.-J. (2008). What Is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1967). “A causal theory of knowing.” Journal of Philosophy 64: 357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1976). “Discrimination and perceptual knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1979). “What is justified belief?” pp. 1–23 in Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology, ed. by Pappas., G. S. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1988). “Strong and weak justification,” pp. 51–69 in Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2: Epistemology, ed. by Tomberlin, J. E.. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2012). “Philosophical naturalism and intuitional methodology,” pp. 280–316 in his Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology: Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2003). “Knowledge as credit for true belief,” pp. 111–34 in Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, ed. by DePaul, M. and Zagzebski, L.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2012). “A (different) virtue epistemology.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2014). “Episteme: Knowledge and understanding,” pp. 285–301 in Virtues and Their Vices, ed. by Timpe, K. and Boyd, C. A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenough, P., and Pritchard, D., eds., (2009). Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutting, G. (2009). What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hales, S. D. (forthcoming). “Why every theory of luck is wrong.” Noûs.Google Scholar
Hales, S. D. and Johnson, J. A. (2014). “Luck attributions and cognitive bias.” Metaphilosophy 45: 509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, M. (2014). “Fallibilism and the value of knowledge.” Synthese 191: 1119–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, M. (1973). Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heathcote, A. (2006). “Truthmaking and the Gettier problem,” pp. 151–67 in Aspects of Knowing: Epistemological Essays, ed. by Hetherington, S.. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (1999). “The proper role for contextualism in an anti-luck epistemology.” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 115–29.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1992). Epistemology’s Paradox: Is a Theory of Knowledge Possible? Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1996a). Knowledge Puzzles: An Introduction to Epistemology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1996b). “Gettieristic scepticism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1998). “Actually knowing.” Philosophical Quarterly 48: 453–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1999). “Knowing failably.” Journal of Philosophy 96: 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2001a). Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge: On Two Dogmas of Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2001b). “A fallibilist and wholly internalist solution to the Gettier problem.” Journal of Philosophical Research 26: 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2002). “Fallibilism and knowing that one is not dreaming.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32: 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2005). “Fallibilism,” in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallibil.htm.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2007). “Review of Justification without Awareness by M. Bergmann.” Mind 116: 1088–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2008). “Not actually Hume’s problem: On induction and knowing-how.” Philosophy 83: 459–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2009). “Sceptical possibilities? No worries.” Synthese 168: 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2010). “Elusive epistemological justification.” Synthese 174: 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011a). How to Know: A Practicalist Conception of Knowledge. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011b). “Abnormality and Gettier situations: An explanatory proposal.” Ratio 24: 176–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011c). “The Gettier problem,” pp. 119–30 in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, ed. by Bernecker, S. and Pritchard, D.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2012). “The Gettier illusion: Gettier-partialism and infallibilism.” Synthese 188: 217–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2013). “Concessive knowledge-attributions: Fallibilism and gradualism.” Synthese 190: 2835–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2014). “Knowledge can be lucky,” pp. 164–76 in Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn., ed. by Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E.. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016). “Understanding fallible warrant and fallible knowledge: Three proposals.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97: 270–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (forthcoming). “Skepticism and fallibilism,” in Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present, ed. by Machuca, D. and Reed, B.. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Howard-Snyder, D., Howard-Snyder, F., and Feit, N. (2003). “Infallibilism and Gettier’s legacy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 304–27.Google Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J., and Jarvis, B. W. (2009). “Thought-experiment intuitions and truth in fiction.” Philosophical Studies 142: 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichikawa, J. J., and Jarvis, B. W. (2013). The Rules of Thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. (2011). “On Gettier holdouts.” Mind & Language 26: 468–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. (1985). “It’s not what you know that counts.” Journal of Philosophy 82: 350–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. (2006). “If you know, you can”t be wrong,” pp. 180–98 in Epistemology Futures, ed. by Hetherington, S.. Oxford: Clarendon Press,.Google Scholar
Kirkham, R. L. (1984). “Does the Gettier problem rest on a mistake?” Mind 93: 501–13.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and Its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2006). “Appeals to intuition and the ambition of epistemology,” pp. 10–25 in Epistemology Futures, ed. by Hetherington, S.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (2011). “Nozick on knowledge,” pp. 162–224 in his Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press,.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuntz, J.R. and Kuntz, J.R.C. (2011). “Surveying philosophers about philosophical intuition.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2: 643–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2012). “Truth-tracking and the value of knowledge,” pp. 101–21 in The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology, ed. by Becker, K. and Black, T.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kyle, B. G. (2013). “Knowledge as a thick concept: Explaining why the Gettier problem arises.” Philosophical Studies 165: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. (2008). “What luck is not.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86: 255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1965). “Knowledge, truth, and evidence.” Analysis 25: 168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Paxson, T. D. (1969). “Knowledge: Undefeated justified true belief.” Journal of Philosophy 66: 225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). “Introduction,” pp. ix–xi in his Philosophical Papers, Vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1996). “Elusive knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowy, C. (1978). “Gettier’s notion of justification.” Mind 87: 105–8.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2006). “On the Gettier problem problem,” pp. 148–68 in Epistemology Futures, ed. by Hetherington., S. Oxford: Clarendon Press,.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2014). “Analytic philosophy and its synoptic commission: Towards the epistemic end of days,” pp. 221–36 in Philosophical Traditions (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 74), ed. by O’Hear, A.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Stich, S., Rose, D., et al. (forthcoming). “Gettier across cultures.” Noûs.Google Scholar
Madison, B. J. C. (2011). “Combating anti anti-luck epistemology.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, P. (2007). “Explication defended.” Studia Logica 86: 331–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merricks, T. (1995). “Warrant entails truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merricks, T. (1997). “More on warrant’s entailing truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 627–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, A. (2012). “Warrant does entail truth.” Synthese 184: 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2005). Understanding Wittgenstein’s On Certainty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. (2007). “Epistemic intuitions.” Philosophy Compass 2: 792–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J. (2012a). “Intuitions and experiments: A defense of the case method in epistemology.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J. (2012b). “Mindreading in Gettier cases and skeptical pressure cases,” pp. 171–91 in Knowledge Ascriptions, ed. by Brown, J. and Gerken, M.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, J., San Juan, V., and Mar, R. A. (2013a). “Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs.” Cognition 129: 652–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, J., San Juan, V., and Mar, R. A. (2013b). “Authentic Gettier cases: A reply to Starmans and Friedman.” Cognition 129: 666–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. (forthcoming). “Basing = treating.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Napier, S. (2008). Virtue Epistemology: Motivation and Knowledge. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Olsson, E. J. (2015). “Gettier and the method of explication: A 60 year old solution to a 50 year old problem.” Philosophical Studies 172: 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993a). Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993b). Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1996). “Respondeo,” pp. 307–78 in Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Plantinga’s Theory of Knowledge, ed. by Kvanvig, J. L.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. (1986). Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2007). “Anti-luck epistemology.” Synthese 158: 277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2009). Knowledge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2014a). “Epistemic luck, safety, and assertion,” pp. 155–72 in Epistemic Norms: New Essays on Action, Belief, and Assertion, ed. by Littlejohn, C. and Turri, J.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2014b). “Knowledge cannot be lucky,” pp. 152–64 in Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edn., ed. by Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E.. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015). “Anti-luck epistemology and the Gettier problem.” Philosophical Studies 172: 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. (2000). “Accidental truth and accidental justification.” Philosophical Quarterly 50: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. (2002). “How to think about fallibilism.” Philosophical Studies 107: 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. (2009). “A new argument for skepticism.” Philosophical Studies 142: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. (2012). “Fallibilism.” Philosophy Compass 7(9): 585–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (1995). Luck: The Brilliant Randomness of Everyday Life. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. D. (2009). “Luck, knowledge, and control,” pp. 204–21 in Epistemic Value, ed. by Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. D. (2014). “Luck, knowledge, and ‘mere coincidence’.” Metaphilosophy 45: 627–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roush, S. (2005). Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roush, S. (2012). “Sensitivity and closure,” pp. 242–68 in The Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology, ed. by Becker, K. and Black, T.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. (1997). “Easy possibilities.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 907–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, K. (2014). “Knowledge and two forms of non-accidental truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Shope, R. K. (1983). The Analysis of Knowing: A Decade of Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sinhababu, N., and Williams, J. (2015). “The backward clock, truth-tracking, and safety.” Journal of Philosophy 112: 46–55.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (1999). “How must knowledge be modally related to what is known?” Philosophical Topics 26: 373–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007a). A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007b). “Experimental philosophy and philosophical intuition.” Philosophical Studies 132: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing Full Well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spicer, F. (2006). “Epistemic intuitions and epistemic contextualism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72: 366–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spicer, F. (2008). “Knowledge and the heuristics of folk epistemology,” pp. 354–83 in New Waves in Epistemology, ed. by Hendricks, V. and Pritchard, D.. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2006). “On logics of knowledge and belief.” Philosophical Studies 128: 169–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2012). Mere Possibilities: Metaphysical Foundations of Modal Semantics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Starmans, C., and Friedman, O. (2012). “The folk conception of knowledge.” Cognition 124: 272–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starmans, C., and Friedman, O. and Friedman, O. (2013). “Taking ‘know’ for an answer: A reply to Nagel, San Juan, and Mar.” Cognition 129: 662–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S., and Buckwalter, W. (2011). “Gender and the philosophy club.” The Philosopher’s Magazine 52: 60–5.Google Scholar
Stone, J. (2013). “‘Unlucky’ Gettier cases.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94: 421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltz, J. (2007). “Gettier and factivity in Indo-Tibetan epistemology.” Philosophical Quarterly 57: 394–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, S. (1993). “The Gettier problem.” Analysis 53: 156–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, S., Alexander, J., and Weinberg, J. M. (2008). “The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on Truetemp.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 138–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turri, J. (2011). “Manifest failure: The Gettier problem solved.” Philosophers’ Imprint 11(8): 1–11.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2012a). “In Gettier’s wake,” pp. 214–29 in Epistemology: The Key Thinkers, ed. by Hetherington, S.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2012b). “Is knowledge justified true belief?” Synthese 184: 247–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turri, J. (2013). “A conspicuous art: putting Gettier to the test.” Philosophers’ Imprint 13(10): 1–16.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (forthcoming). “Knowledge judgments in ‘Gettier’ cases,” in A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, ed. by Sytsma, J. and Buckwalter, W.. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Buckwalter, W., and Blouw, P. (2015). “Knowledge and luck.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22: 378–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unger, P. (1968). “An analysis of factual knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 65: 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaesen, K., Peterson, M., and van Bezooijen, B. (2013). “The reliability of armchair intuitions.” Metaphilosophy 44: 559–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, C. (2014). “Truthmaker theory does not solve the Gettier problem.” Ratio 27: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherson, B. (2003). “What good are counterexamples?” Philosophical Studies 115: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, J. M. (2006). “What’s epistemology for? The case for neopragmatism in normative metaepistemology,” pp. 26–47 in Epistemology Futures, ed. by Hetherington, S.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, J. M., Nichols, S., and Stich, S. (2001). “Normativity and epistemic intuitions.” Philosophical Topics 29: 429–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2009). “Probability and danger.” Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 4: 1–35.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2013). “Gettier cases in epistemic logic.” Inquiry 56: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1994). “The inescapability of Gettier problems.” Philosophical Quarterly 44: 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1999). “What is knowledge?” pp. 92–116 in The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, ed. by Greco, J. and Sosa, E.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Knowledge and the Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316569870.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Knowledge and the Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316569870.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Knowledge and the Gettier Problem
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316569870.009
Available formats
×