2013
DOI: 10.1111/phpr.12067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are We Luminous?

Abstract: Since its appearance over a decade ago, Timothy Williamson's anti‐luminosity argument has come under sustained attack. Defenders of the luminous overwhelmingly object to the argument's use of a certain margin‐for‐error premise. Williamson himself claims that the premise follows easily from a safety condition on knowledge together with his description of the thought experiment. But luminists argue that this is not so: the margin‐for‐error premise either requires an implausible interpretation of the safety requi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

2
41
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(53 reference statements)
2
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For a response, see Berker (). For a response to Berker, see Srinivasan (). Schwitzgebel () provides empirical arguments against claims like LUMINOSITY.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a response, see Berker (). For a response to Berker, see Srinivasan (). Schwitzgebel () provides empirical arguments against claims like LUMINOSITY.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it turns out that, in α i , Mr. Davis holds a belief that is not safe; for there is an extremely similar possible situation, namely α i +1 , in which he continues to have an at‐most‐slightly‐lower degree of confidence in the proposition expressed by ‘I currently undergo *↓*,’ although this proposition is false. It seems, then, that ‘even a constitutive connection between feeling cold and believing one feels cold is insufficient to vindicate luminosity’ (Srinivasan, , p. 310).…”
Section: Confidence Safetymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although she does not explicitly reshape Williamson's argument along these lines, my reformulation owes much to Srinivasan (, see especially p. 302 and pp. 306–8).…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For an argument that that even constitutive conditions don't constitute counterexamples to Anti‐Cartesianism—and thus that no metanormative view is immune from anything I say here—see Williamson (, 99 ff.) and Srinivasan ().…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%