Defeating
I'm working on a paper idea, and it would be helpful if I knew something about what the going views are on defeating, in the following sense: I may have some evidence that p, but that evidence could be defeated by some (perhaps stronger) evidence that ~p.
I feel like there are probably `internalist' and `externalist' style positions here: on the internalist position, if d defeats evidence e for agent A, then A must know d; on the externalist position, d can defeat e for A even if A does not know d, or something like that. Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated.
I feel like there are probably `internalist' and `externalist' style positions here: on the internalist position, if d defeats evidence e for agent A, then A must know d; on the externalist position, d can defeat e for A even if A does not know d, or something like that. Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated.
Posted by Justin Snedegar on
06.19.2009 at 1:43am