
Publication details
Year: 2013
Pages: 1977-1999
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "The self-knowledge gambit", Synthese 190 (12), 2013, pp. 1977-1999.
Abstract
If we hold that perceiving is sufficient for knowing, we can raise a powerful objection to dreaming skepticism: Skeptics assume the implausible KK-principle, because they hold that if we don’t know whether we are dreaming or perceiving p, we don’t know whether p. The rejection of the KK-principle thus suggests an anti-skeptical strategy: We can sacrifice some of our self-knowledge—our second-order knowledge—and thereby save our knowledge of the external world. I call this strategy the Self-Knowledge Gambit. I argue that the Self-Knowledge Gambit is not satisfactory, because the dreaming skeptic can avail herself of a normative counterpart to the KK-principle: When we lack second-order knowledge, we should suspend our first-order beliefs and thereby give up any first-order knowledge we might have had. The skeptical challenge is essentially a normative challenge, and one can raise it even if one rejects the KK-Principle.
Publication details
Year: 2013
Pages: 1977-1999
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "The self-knowledge gambit", Synthese 190 (12), 2013, pp. 1977-1999.