Johnathan Schaffer: "The debasing demon"
- Kelly MacWilliam
Section 1: The argument as presented in Johnathan Schaffer’s article entitled “The debasing demon”
1) If I know proposition p then I have a true belief properly based on the evidence.
2) Any belief can be produced on an improper basis.
3) The debasing demon makes it is always possible, when a belief is produced on an improper basis, for it to seem later as if one had produced a belief properly based on the evidence.
4) If (3) and (2) then I might be wrong about how I came to believe p.
5) Therefore, I might be wrong about how I came to believe p.
6) If (5) then I do not know that p.
7) Therefore, I do not know that p.
8) If (7) and (3) then for any proposition p, I do not know it.
9) Therefore, for any proposition p, I do not know it.
Section 2: My argument against Schaffer’s argument rejecting premise (8)
10) Either I am in the debasing demon scenario or I am not in the debasing demon scenario.
11) If I am in the debasing demon scenario then for any proposition p, I do not know it.
12) If I am not in the debasing demon scenario then if I have a belief that p, and p is true, and I believe the p on the basis of properly based evidence then I know it.
13) If (12) then (8) is false.
14) Therefore (8) is false.
posted by kmac420 at 3:47 PM
2 Comments:
I seemingly can't create a new post, so Kelly, if you don't mind I'll piggy back on your post since we're doing the same paper.
My argument for The Debasing Demon:
Schaffer's Argument:
1: If I know T (A), then I can know that I know T (B)
2: If I can know that I know T (B), then I can know that my belief of T is properly based (C)
3: If I know T (A), then I can know that my belief of T is properly based (C) (HS 2, 3).
4: I cannot know that my belief of T is properly based (~C)
5: I do not know T (~A) (MT 4, 5).
Response to Schaffer:
1: ~(If I know T [A], then I can know that I know T [B])
2: If I can know that I know T (B), then I can know that my belief of T is properly based (C)
3: ~(If I know T [A], then I can know that my belief of T is properly based [C] [HS 2, 3]).
4: I cannot know that my belief of T is properly based (~C)
5: ~(I do not know T [~A] [MT 4, 5]).
(Works referenced: The Debasing Demon [Schaffer], Debasing Scepticism [Brueckner])
Oh damn, I got all excited thinking that someone had thoughts about my argument. Way to burst my bubble Max! But seriously I don't mind at all.
I'm a bit confused about the notation that you use in your response to Schaffer. Specifically the '~'s. Would premise 1 (of your argument) read, 'It is not the case that: If I know T [A], then I can know that I know T [B]'?
You should renumber the premises of your arg. 6-10 or 1a-5a or something different than Schaffer's arg.!
Post a Comment
<< Home