Still stuck on the Backward Clock: A rejoinder to Clarke, Adams and Barker
NeilSinhababu and I presented Backward Clock,an original counterexample to Robert Nozick’s truth-tracking analysis ofpropositional knowledge In theirlatest defence of the truth-tracking theories, “Methods Matter: Beating the BackwardClock,” Fred Adams, John A. Barker and Murray Clarke try again defe...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2429 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/3686/viewcontent/williams.VIII_.2.2017_4.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | NeilSinhababu and I presented Backward Clock,an original counterexample to Robert Nozick’s truth-tracking analysis ofpropositional knowledge In theirlatest defence of the truth-tracking theories, “Methods Matter: Beating the BackwardClock,” Fred Adams, John A. Barker and Murray Clarke try again defend Nozick’s and FredDretske’s early analysis of propositional knowledge against Backward Clock. They allege failure oftruth-adherence, mistakes on my part about methods and appeal to charity,‘equivocation’, reliable methods and unfair internalism. I argue that theseobjections all fail. They are still stuck with the fact that thetracking theories fall to Backward Clock,an even more useful test case for other analyses of knowledge than might havefirst appeared. |
|---|