Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Brian Weatherson


Pragmatic encroachment theories have a problem with evidence. On the one hand, the arguments that knowledge is interest-relative look like they will generalise to show that evidence too is interest-relative. On the other hand, our best story of how interests affect knowledge presupposes an interest-invariant notion of evidence. This paper sketches a theory of evidence that is interest-relative, but which allows that ‘best story’ to go through with minimal changes. The evidence someone has is just what evidence a radical interpreter says they have. And a radical interpreter is playing a kind of game with the person they are interpreting. The cases that pose problems for pragmatic encroachment theorists involve coordination games between the interpreter and the interpretee, and like most coordination games they have multiple equilibria. The best solution to these games involves the notion of risk-dominant equilibria. So the evidence the person has is the evidence the interpreter says they have in the risk-dominant equilibria. This will be interest-relative, but consistent with the ‘best story' about how interests usually affect knowledge.


Corresponding author


Hide All
Brown, J. 2008. ‘Subject-Sensitive Invariantism and the Knowledge Norm for Practical Reasoning.’ Noûs, 42: 167–89.
Carlsson, H. and van Damme, E. 1993. ‘Global Games and Equilibrium Selection.’ Econometrica, 61: 9891018.
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harsanyi, J. C. and Selten, R. 1988. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ichikawa, J. J., Jarvis, B. and Rubin, K. 2012. ‘Pragmatic Encroachment and Belief-Desire Psychology.’ Analytic Philosophy, 53: 327–43.
Lackey, J. 2010. ‘Acting on Knowledge.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 361–82.
Reed, B. 2014. ‘Practical Matters Do Not Affect Whether You Know.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd edition, pp. 95106. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rousseau, J.-J. 1913. Social Contract and Discourses. Translated by Cole, G. D. H.. New York, NY: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Rubin, K. 2015. ‘Total Pragmatic Encroachment and Epistemic Permissiveness.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96: 1238.
Schwitzgebel, E. 2008. ‘The Unreliability of Naive Introspection.’ Philosophical Review, 117: 245–73.
Stanley, J. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO


  • Brian Weatherson


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.