Closure, contrast, and answer

Jonathan Schaffer

doi:10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x

Closure, contrast, and answer

Jonathan Schaffer^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

How should the contrastivist formulate closure? That is, given that knowledge is a ternary contrastive state Kspq (s knows that p rather than q), how does this state extend under entailment? In what follows, I will identify adequacy conditions for closure, criticize the extant invariantist and contextualist closure schemas, and provide a contrastive schema based on the idea of extending answers. I will conclude that only the contrastivist can adequately formulate closure.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	233-255
Number of pages	23
Journal	Philosophical Studies
Volume	133
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x
Publication status	Published - Mar 2007
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x

Cite this

@article{9c1a31138a0e4ccfa4c8c99f3a461afb,

title = "Closure, contrast, and answer",

abstract = "How should the contrastivist formulate closure? That is, given that knowledge is a ternary contrastive state Kspq (s knows that p rather than q), how does this state extend under entailment? In what follows, I will identify adequacy conditions for closure, criticize the extant invariantist and contextualist closure schemas, and provide a contrastive schema based on the idea of extending answers. I will conclude that only the contrastivist can adequately formulate closure.",

author = "Jonathan Schaffer",

year = "2007",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x",

language = "English",

volume = "133",

pages = "233--255",

journal = "Philosophical Studies",

issn = "0031-8116",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Closure, contrast, and answer

AU - Schaffer, Jonathan

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - How should the contrastivist formulate closure? That is, given that knowledge is a ternary contrastive state Kspq (s knows that p rather than q), how does this state extend under entailment? In what follows, I will identify adequacy conditions for closure, criticize the extant invariantist and contextualist closure schemas, and provide a contrastive schema based on the idea of extending answers. I will conclude that only the contrastivist can adequately formulate closure.

AB - How should the contrastivist formulate closure? That is, given that knowledge is a ternary contrastive state Kspq (s knows that p rather than q), how does this state extend under entailment? In what follows, I will identify adequacy conditions for closure, criticize the extant invariantist and contextualist closure schemas, and provide a contrastive schema based on the idea of extending answers. I will conclude that only the contrastivist can adequately formulate closure.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/33847648968

U2 - 10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x

DO - 10.1007/s11098-005-4545-x

M3 - Article

SN - 0031-8116

VL - 133

SP - 233

EP - 255

JO - Philosophical Studies

JF - Philosophical Studies

IS - 2

ER -

Closure, contrast, and answer

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this