Reply to Eaton and Pickavance

Brian James Weatherson

doi:10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0

Reply to Eaton and Pickavance

Brian James Weatherson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

David Eaton and Timothy Pickavance argued that interest-relative invariantism has a surprising and interesting consequence. They take this consequence to be so implausible that it refutes interest-relative invariantism. But in fact it is a consequence that any theory of knowledge that has the resources to explain familiar puzzles (such as Gettier cases) must have.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-3
Journal	Philosophical Studies
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0
Publication status	Published - 11 Mar 2016

Keywords

Knowledge
Interests
Gettier cases

Access to Document

10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0

Reply to Eaton and Pickavance
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0
Accepted author manuscript, 30.7 KB

Cite this

@article{92701f1557ed459491d251430611e270,

title = "Reply to Eaton and Pickavance",

abstract = "David Eaton and Timothy Pickavance argued that interest-relative invariantism has a surprising and interesting consequence. They take this consequence to be so implausible that it refutes interest-relative invariantism. But in fact it is a consequence that any theory of knowledge that has the resources to explain familiar puzzles (such as Gettier cases) must have.",

keywords = "Knowledge, Interests, Gettier cases",

author = "Weatherson, {Brian James}",

year = "2016",

month = mar,

day = "11",

doi = "10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0",

language = "English",

pages = "1--3",

journal = "Philosophical Studies",

issn = "0031-8116",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to Eaton and Pickavance

AU - Weatherson, Brian James

PY - 2016/3/11

Y1 - 2016/3/11

N2 - David Eaton and Timothy Pickavance argued that interest-relative invariantism has a surprising and interesting consequence. They take this consequence to be so implausible that it refutes interest-relative invariantism. But in fact it is a consequence that any theory of knowledge that has the resources to explain familiar puzzles (such as Gettier cases) must have.

AB - David Eaton and Timothy Pickavance argued that interest-relative invariantism has a surprising and interesting consequence. They take this consequence to be so implausible that it refutes interest-relative invariantism. But in fact it is a consequence that any theory of knowledge that has the resources to explain familiar puzzles (such as Gettier cases) must have.

KW - Knowledge

KW - Interests

KW - Gettier cases

U2 - 10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0

DO - 10.1007/s11098-016-0660-0

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 0031-8116

SP - 1

EP - 3

JO - Philosophical Studies

JF - Philosophical Studies

ER -

Reply to Eaton and Pickavance

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this