|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Common Skeptical Argument:
1. If S knows that p, then necessarily S is not mistaken in believing that p.
2. S is mistaken in believing that p = df {[S believes that p] but not-p}. 3. If p is not incorrigible for S, then it is possible that {[S believes that p] but not-p}. 4. Therefore, if p is not incorrigible for S, then S does not know that p. Does this argument succeed? Does it contain any fallacies or defects? |
|
|