Safety and dream scepticism in Sosa’s epistemology
J. Adam Carter, Robert G. Cowan
Synthese May 23, 2024 DOI: 10.1007/s11229-024-04577-0 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Skepticism Epistemology Metaphysics Argument complex analysis Philosophy of science Dream Virtue Competence human resources Philosophy of language Premise |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues that the safety objection to Sosa's epistemology is weaker than critics realize, and that a dreaming-based response—drawing on the nearness of dream possibilities—strengthens the case for a weaker, SSS-relativized safety condition on knowledge. |
Abstract
Abstract A common objection to Sosa’s epistemology is that it countenances, in an objectionable way, unsafe knowledge . This objection, under closer inspection, turns out to be in far worse shape than Sosa’s critics have realised. Sosa and his defenders have offered two central response types to the idea that allowing unsafe knowledge is problematic: one response type adverts to the animal/reflective knowledge distinction that is characteristic of bi-level virtue epistemology. The other less-discussed response type appeals to the threat of dream scepticism , and in particular, to the idea that many of our everyday perceptual beliefs are unsafe through the nearness of the dream possibility. The latter dreaming response to the safety objection to Sosa’s virtue epistemology has largely flown under the radar in contemporary discussions of safety and knowledge. We think that, suitably articulated in view of research in the philosophy and science of dreaming, it has much more going for it than has been appreciated. This paper further develops, beyond what Sosa does himself, the dreaming argument in response to those who think safety (as traditionally understood) is a condition on knowledge and who object to Sosa’s account on the grounds that it fails this condition. The payoffs of further developing this argument will be not only a better understanding of the importance of insights about dreaming against safety as a condition on knowledge, but also some reason to think a weaker safety condition, one that is relativised to SSS (i.e., skill/shape/situation) conditions for competence exercise, gets better results all things considered as an anti-luck codicil on knowledge.
Comparable studies
Other theoretical and historical papers on philosophy of mind, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. | 2003 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| From dopamine to salience to psychosis--linking biology, pharmacology and phenomenology of psychosis. | 2005 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| How do the brain's time and space mediate consciousness and its different dimensions? Temporo-spatial theory of consciousness (TTC). | 2017 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| The phenomenology of deep brain stimulation-induced changes in OCD: an enactive affordance-based model. | 2013 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| Looking for the Self: Phenomenology, Neurophysiology and Philosophical Significance of Drug-induced Ego Dissolution | 2017 | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
Citations in the library
Cites 9
- The cognitive neuroscience of lucid dreaming Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 14, 2019
- Aphantasia, imagination and dreaming Philosophical Studies September 18, 2020
- Wake Up, Work on Dreams, Back to Bed and Lucid Dream: A Sleep Laboratory Study. Frontiers in Psychology 2020
- Dreams, agency, and judgement Synthese July 20, 2017
- Experience, Dreaming, and the Phenomenology of Wakeful Consciousness Oxford Scholarship Online June 21, 2018
and 4 more in the library